There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
I'd recommend a listen to the More of Less podcast's recent episode on Cass:
'98%: Is misinformation being spread about a review of trans youth medicine?'.
That this is a BBC podcast which is so excoriating of trans activists shows how Cass has changed the narrative.
Speaking of which I said I'd go thru it. I don't know when I'll have time but thanks for the reminder.
I haven't quite finished it, but Cass is not how it is being spun by either Transphobes or Trans activists.
It is about providing timely, scientifically based youth Transgender services, and for determining evidence based treatments for areas such as puberty blockers where this is currently inadequate. It isn't about access to toilet/changing areas/hospitals/refuges as social policy falls outside its remit, nor is it about services and treatments for adults.
The current effect is not what it says in its introduction (to provide high quality evidence based services) but rather to close down all youth Gender services entirely. The Tavistock has closed, the replacement services have not started and are struggling to find staff. Patients on the waiting list simply aren't going to be seen for years.
Well yes, but that's not what I meant. Analyses of, and attacks on, the Cass Review/report tend to get bogged down in detail and adhominems. I was thinking of going thru each para and applying some simple yes/no sieves (is this para sourced? What is the age group? Which of the York reviews is it referring to?). Such simple tests can be displayed in a 2x2 table, or several ones.
If i have time (urgh...) I could then do a time series, depicting sources by date.
To put it simply, Cass Final is being dealt with as a political document. Treating it like a statistical document may yield light instead of heat...
It is possible to quibble over some of the literature reviews. There is a hierarchy of evidence for these, and while there are a paucity of strong evidence on any of the topics, though a lot of weaker evidence from case series and expert opinion from recognised authorities. This isn't unusual in Child Health, where many medicines are unlicensed but widely used.
It will never be treated as a completely scientific issue because the whole issue of gender as distinct from sex, and of gender inconguence is a philosophical and social issue too.
Don't get me started on hierarchies of evidence. Ever since the replication crisis statistics has degenerated into overengineered approaches (systematic reviews, metaanalyses), and ever since modelling displaced classical statistics it's degenerated further into people running software at desks. Cass was an awesome opportunity to investigate, but instead it reviewed.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
"Safe and legal routes" is effectively an open-door policy.
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.
Again with your rhetoric about “open-door” policies, and yet you never answer the point that immigration is at record highs under the Conservatives.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Tosh.
It's disgusting because of what it proposed doing to people. And it has involved the UK government knowingly passing a law that says that up is down, even if new evidence comes to light.
It's likely to be ineffective because the government is going to do it to so few people that deterrence is unlikely to kick in. Deterrence is roughly severity multiplied by probability, and the probability in the UK's Rwanda plan is too low to be useful.
I've said before, you have to go big on this sort of thing, or it will collapse as a joke.
Cruel but effective is a worthwhile moral debate. Cruel but ineffective is just evil.
The last paragraph is a real non-sequiter. If the policy was effective (like in Australia) we all know what the Liberal argument would pivot towards, and so do you. I'm interested in reading the thoughts of intelligent Liberals on this (and there are quite a few, as it happens) and I hope you can develop your own.
The existing treaties for international asylum were written in a different age for a different challenge and are totally unsustainable. You have a choice: find a solution to enforcing our borders, or expect a hard-right fascist government at some point in the future. Open borders might be a lovely idea in an ideal world but insisting on this principle as policy is deeply naive and totally devoid of any sense of realpolitik.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
As someone who thinks the present policy on immigration is nasty and brutal I’m finding myself conflicted by a report I read recently to the effect that many of the current boat passengers are Vietnamese. Now I’m aware that Vietnam isn’t paradise on earth, but I doubt very much that people trying to come here from there are in the same category, refugee-wise, as, for example, Afghans who worked for our Army and their families. I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back. I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
The Tories are failing to do the basic things well, and instead invoke fantasy solutions like Rwanda. These are not insoluble problems: they just require a bit of competence and a bit of spending.
The problem is the qualifying criteria for asylum are far too broad and provide all sorts of loopholes for it to be gamed in the name of economic migration.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
"Safe and legal routes" is effectively an open-door policy.
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.
A few things here. 1) you are in control so can say how many you'll take in a year and if it's between 25k and 40k you're win by processing them outside the country. 2) just because you process someone it doesn't mean that they're successful. There's going to be a lot of failed processed people who will be deported. 3) if you do it correctly, with support from the French you can jointly process the people and force people to claim asylum in France.
The people trying to get over to the UK is as much an issue for the French as it is for us.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
Clearly huge resistance in the SNP to any deal with Alba to save Humza Yousaf. That leaves the Scottish Greens. They continue to insist they will vote against him. If the FM can't persuade his party (and Alba!) to swallow a deal or the Greens to change their mind, he's finished.
Salmond's base idea of a more progressive and more traditionalist strand to independence, acting as a coalition is not a terrible one at heart.
However, neither the current SNP nor, particularly, Alba, look like ideal fits for those two roles.
If he could get there from here, a threading the eye of the needle solution for Humza might look something like this, bearing in mind that it is Ash Regan rather than Alex Salmond that he needs to deal with.
The spin off of a new party to go into coalition with, or the dissolution (administration?) of the SNP and the formation of two new parties might find a place in the Nationalist movement for Regan whilst casting Salmond and Alba back into the wilderness. And Kate Forbes's place in all this is not difficult to imagine!
But, the cold water is that that merely gets Humza to level in Holyrood, there is no decent majority for him. He would have to carry such an offer unanimously within the SNP and, frankly, fat chance.
Nevertheless, what emerges from the Ashes of this in years to come, might just possibly be along these lines
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
Could you ask AI to construct a scenario around the deterrent qualities of an outside chance of being deported to Rwanda?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
This is exactly the way we should be doing things.
Err, no it isn't. You're quite a economically and constitutionally right-wing English nationalist who ameliorates this by having a totally open flank on migration and asylum, no doubt partly influenced by some political "heritage" in your extended family and the need to define yourself against that.
Fair enough. I'd feel conflicted by that too. But that's no reason to listen seriously to you on this subject, in the same way I don't for Simon Jenkins on defence or foreign policy - but do on many other matters.
Clearly huge resistance in the SNP to any deal with Alba to save Humza Yousaf. That leaves the Scottish Greens. They continue to insist they will vote against him. If the FM can't persuade his party (and Alba!) to swallow a deal or the Greens to change their mind, he's finished.
Salmond's base idea of a more progressive and more traditionalist strand to independence, acting as a coalition is not a terrible one at heart.
However, neither the current SNP nor, particularly, Alba, look like ideal fits for those two roles.
If he could get there from here, a threading the eye of the needle solution for Hamza might look something like this, bearing in mind that it is Ash Regan rather than Alex Salmond that he needs to deal with.
The spin off of a new party to go into coalition with, or the dissolution (administration?) of the SNP and the formation of two new parties might find a place in the Nationalist movement for Regan whilst casting Salmond and Alba back into the wilderness.
But, the cold water is that that merely gets Hamza to level in Holyrood, there is no decent majority for him. He would have to carry such an offer unanimously within the SNP and, frankly, fat chance.
Nevertheless, what emerges from the Ashes of this in years to come, might just possibly be along these lines
What's emerging from Ash now hasn't been very enlightening. Or rather it has.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
Yeah that's fair, the boat problem is difficult, I have no ideas for that. To me, it makes no sense that people want to risk their lives crossing the channel in something overcrowded and barely seaworthy. I mean, how bad does your life have to be to risk that? I can only guess that it must be because they are young and consider themselves indestructible.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.
I'm struck how Casino is happy to explain how his political opponents think, when he'd get pretty offended were we to return the favour.
FWIW, I'm happy to concede I have no idea what goes on in his noggin.
If you think I've got it wrong then please feel free to put forward your own counterargument and try to convince me.
The Left and Liberals need to find an answer to this and throwing around words like repugnant, immoral, disgusting and unethical aren't going to cut it in a democracy which wants this issue addressed - unless you want to end up with no democracy at all.
Alex obviously loving all this attention this morning, as he should, with his party having never had anybody elected to anything. He now wants to exert influence over our Government and he must be told quite clearly that can never, ever, happen.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
What happens when the Kenyan authorities decide they are fed up with Somali refugees heading to and waiting in Nairobi at the British Embassy and start rounding them up and bussing them back and the Somali authorities are waiting at the border for the returnees?
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
Could you ask AI to construct a scenario around the deterrent qualities of an outside chance of being deported to Rwanda?
Mr Minh: "where the fuck is Rwanda?"
I think the added words “it’s in central Africa” will do the trick with 99.93% of claimants
Rwanda will absolutely work if it is done properly. Ie a large proportion of people that come over by boat is sent to Rwanda for at least a few weeks.
It would need to be 20% minimum. Maybe a lot higher
Once you have a 1 in 3 chance or even 1 in 2, of ending up in central Africa then you won’t even bother trying to get to the UK. The boats will stop overnight. Which means people stop drowning and the people traffickers go out of business. It is also the fair answer for British voters who are already paying billions to house the people already here. It is actually the humane solution
However the Rwanda policy we have now does nothing like this. It is a few people on a few planes
Will it work? I highly doubt it. But there is a slender chance that just the threat of Rwanda (and maybe a couple of actual flights) will do the job. The Irish reports hint that this could be true
I presume Sunak is praying this is the case. If it is he will get a major boost. But I’m very skeptical it will work
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
"Safe and legal routes" is effectively an open-door policy.
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.
Again with your rhetoric about “open-door” policies, and yet you never answer the point that immigration is at record highs under the Conservatives.
This post tells me rather a lot about you though and how many on the Liberal-Left perceive Conservatives. That is: we hate all forms of migration and immigration at all.
This is not the case. There's a whole world of difference between legal migration that we control, and its level, and people smugglers exploiting loopholes for those who have the temerity to take the piss in their desire to get here.
You need to think of it more in terms of how Brits feel about queue-jumping and fair play.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Tosh.
It's disgusting because of what it proposed doing to people. And it has involved the UK government knowingly passing a law that says that up is down, even if new evidence comes to light.
It's likely to be ineffective because the government is going to do it to so few people that deterrence is unlikely to kick in. Deterrence is roughly severity multiplied by probability, and the probability in the UK's Rwanda plan is too low to be useful.
I've said before, you have to go big on this sort of thing, or it will collapse as a joke.
Cruel but effective is a worthwhile moral debate. Cruel but ineffective is just evil.
The last paragraph is a real non-sequiter. If the policy was effective (like in Australia) we all know what the Liberal argument would pivot towards, and so do you. I'm interested in reading the thoughts of intelligent Liberals on this (and there are quite a few, as it happens) and I hope you can develop your own.
The existing treaties for international asylum were written in a different age for a different challenge and are totally unsustainable. You have a choice: find a solution to enforcing our borders, or expect a hard-right fascist government at some point in the future. Open borders might be a lovely idea in an ideal world but insisting on this principle as policy is deeply naive and totally devoid of any sense of realpolitik.
Think about it.
How is the last paragraph a non sequiter? You might not agree for the reasons you give but it isn't a non sequiter in any possible meaning.
Also as explained by several it is possible to argue two things at the same time that aren't mutually exclusive. You are probably right that if effective the argument that it isn't moral may fail with public opinion and hence the focus on it not working, but that doesn't make it a perfectly good argument. I have plenty of views that are minority views. That doesn't mean I should give up on them and if I have another supporting argument that has a majority view I would be an idiot to focus on the less persuasive argument wouldn't I.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
@AamerAnwar responds: “Offshoring people 5,000 miles away is nothing more than a grubby cash for people plan. I suspect in the coming days we will see an explosion of the spirit of Kenmure Street across the UK, opposing a policy that will lead to misery, self-harm and death"
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Tosh.
It's disgusting because of what it proposed doing to people. And it has involved the UK government knowingly passing a law that says that up is down, even if new evidence comes to light.
It's likely to be ineffective because the government is going to do it to so few people that deterrence is unlikely to kick in. Deterrence is roughly severity multiplied by probability, and the probability in the UK's Rwanda plan is too low to be useful.
I've said before, you have to go big on this sort of thing, or it will collapse as a joke.
Cruel but effective is a worthwhile moral debate. Cruel but ineffective is just evil.
The last paragraph is a real non-sequiter. If the policy was effective (like in Australia) we all know what the Liberal argument would pivot towards, and so do you. I'm interested in reading the thoughts of intelligent Liberals on this (and there are quite a few, as it happens) and I hope you can develop your own.
The existing treaties for international asylum were written in a different age for a different challenge and are totally unsustainable. You have a choice: find a solution to enforcing our borders, or expect a hard-right fascist government at some point in the future. Open borders might be a lovely idea in an ideal world but insisting on this principle as policy is deeply naive and totally devoid of any sense of realpolitik.
Think about it.
What makes you think I haven't?
Yes, there is a genuine problem. But "We must do something and this is something - therefore we must do this" is a trope as old as time.
And you have spent the weekend trying to claim that the Rwanda can't be both cruel and ineffective. It can very easily be both.
It doesn't require much thinking to recognise that.
O/T: the local elections are next week. If you have postal votes please make sure that they are posted in good time to get there before the closing date, which I think is 23:59 Wednesday
O/T: the local elections are next week. If you have postal votes please make sure that they are posted in good time to get there before the closing date, which I think is 23:59 Wednesday
Postal votes can still be handed in at polling stations before close of poll on Thursday.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
What happens when the Kenyan authorities decide they are fed up with Somali refugees heading to and waiting in Nairobi at the British Embassy and start rounding them up and bussing them back and the Somali authorities are waiting at the border for the returnees?
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
There are several hundred thousand Somali refugees already in Kenya, so they have a system already.
Labour triple lock promise. Inevitable, I think, but will draw the ire of lots of working age commentators.
I think they've missed an opportunity to do something more creative. They could have promised a one off hike in the pension followed by a return to indexing to wages.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests . The triple lock polls well even amongst younger people. No party will ditch the triple lock unless there was a cross party decision to do so . The Tories will never agree to that as their pensioner vote is the only thing stopping them from being totally wiped out .
And this is why changing the occupant in no 10 will not see the real and necessary change to group think
The triple lock delivery to wealthy pensioners is just wrong and very costly.
Add in the need for defence spending rising to 2.5%, the need for social care which parties are in denial, the needs for the NHS and education then taxes have to rise including on property
The triple lock can't carry on forever, sure.
But equally, means testing the state pension creates bad consequences; why bother saving if the government is going to claw back your prudence? So the basic pension really ought to be a basic, frugal but liveable amount, which means moving it up from where it is now. Doing that gradually is the point of the TL.
I reckon that points to two things. First, those of us fortunate enough to have other pension income shouldn't have quite so favourable tax treatment. Shifting from NI to income tax rates does that, though the Sunak-Hunt policy of cutting NI rates by freezing IT thresholds doesn't do it as well. Second, the debate needs to be "what's the threshold for changing the Triple Lock?", not whether to axe it now.
Besides, if anything with pensions is going to stick politically, it needs a long run in. Ten years time, maybe?
No way can you penalise people who have paid all their lives for a state pension by giving them less than people who have contributed less to nothing. If they want to change it then let people who want to organise their own pension by being able to opt out and use their money to buy a far better pension than they get for 50 years of paying into state one.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
If 'I let Alex speak for me' Ash became leader, the SNP would be over for a generation. Put that in your cunning plan pipe and smoke it.
Way they are going TUD they will be over anyway. Unles they clear out the woke useless clowns currently running the show they are done for.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
I do not support open borders and have been advocating a system of overseas applications specifically because it controls our border.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
In the end all they are doing is guaranteeing a hard right party in power in london, in the end
It’s so stupid. Look at what is happening across Europe. We are not immune to that, we are just a few years behind due to unique circumstances
I’m quite firmly on the right; but I’d rather we didn’t have a hard right government because that would be ugly and sad, yet I’d cope. It would do some things of which I approve (and others I don’t)
It would be absolute horrifying anathema to the PB lefties. Which is the deep irony here
Allez: enough. I am in a car park with a croissant. Time to go for a walk and find some megalithic NOOM
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
I noted a little concern among some the other day that I don't have travel insurance..
I told my Mum about Tennessee Travis and his venomous snake bite. This obviously triggered something as I got an email confirming my insurance a couple of hours later, arranged by my Dad
Oh, and I noticed that I passed half a million steps this morning (day nine)
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
Could you ask AI to construct a scenario around the deterrent qualities of an outside chance of being deported to Rwanda?
Mr Minh: "where the fuck is Rwanda?"
I think the added words “it’s in central Africa” will do the trick with 99.93% of claimants
Rwanda will absolutely work if it is done properly. Ie a large proportion of people that come over by boat is sent to Rwanda for at least a few weeks.
It would need to be 20% minimum. Maybe a lot higher
Once you have a 1 in 3 chance or even 1 in 2, of ending up in central Africa then you won’t even bother trying to get to the UK. The boats will stop overnight. Which means people stop drowning and the people traffickers go out of business. It is also the fair answer for British voters who are already paying billions to house the people already here. It is actually the humane solution
However the Rwanda policy we have now does nothing like this. It is a few people on a few planes
Will it work? I highly doubt it. But there is a slender chance that just the threat of Rwanda (and maybe a couple of actual flights) will do the job. The Irish reports hint that this could be true
I presume Sunak is praying this is the case. If it is he will get a major boost. But I’m very skeptical it will work
Yes, that's the fairest reflection.
There are some interesting dividing lines now opening up between the Conservatives and Labour on welfare, immigration and defence, which the latter are yet to develop any answers toward. This could be significant for the election.
Against that, of course, there's the parlous state of the NHS, which, despite having 188 squillion pounds a year spent on it each year, still seems to perform as if it hasn't had a penny but, without Labour pledging to raise tax and borrowing to fund massive sustained real-terms increases, it can't do much about.
SKS knows all this, he's not stupid, and will need to develop some answers. But there's enough emerging evidence now that his main interests are in soft nationalisation, expansion of the public sector and pretending there won't be any extra tax (spoiler: there will) to know where he's going.
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
@AamerAnwar responds: “Offshoring people 5,000 miles away is nothing more than a grubby cash for people plan. I suspect in the coming days we will see an explosion of the spirit of Kenmure Street across the UK, opposing a policy that will lead to misery, self-harm and death"
Do the rumours of Sunak launching the GE campaign tomorrow look more or less likely off the back of dawn raids by B the Home Office?
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Or "don't go into government with the SNP"? That's the lesson that the LD's (and the DUP to a lesser degree) learned with respect to the Tories the hard way.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Arguably just as important as all the Alba Party chatter. Fergus Ewing’s latest remarks amount to telling Yousaf: “I’ll vote for you next week, but you’re finished anyway.”
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Yes, but is too much being blamed on the Scottish Green's? The SNP's madcap left contingent, also pushing these dystopian laws, are also to blame.
I think a large chunk of the “progressive” agenda (sic) can be laid at Sturgeon’s door and the Greens provided good cover against the small c conservatives in the SNP - much as Cameron used the LibDems
Progressive my arse, bunch of chancers who could not run a bath.
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Or "don't go into government with the SNP"? That's the lesson that the LD's (and the DUP to a lesser degree) learned with respect to the Tories the hard way.
Those desperado's would do anything to get ministerial cars and pretend they are real politician's rather than weirdo muppets devoid of brains or principles.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
Why would they do an offshore application unless they are sure they meet the criteria for asylum. Any economic migrant will still be looking at the boats route so again there needs to be a hefty deterrent.
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Arguably just as important as all the Alba Party chatter. Fergus Ewing’s latest remarks amount to telling Yousaf: “I’ll vote for you next week, but you’re finished anyway.”
This story is utterly shocking. Of a piece, sadly and shamefully, with how the British state treats victims of its misconduct.
"A British Army veteran of 13 years and victim of the Windrush Scandal has died in Jamaica after being left destitute and humiliated by the UK government.
When Anthony Williams despaired with the UK in 2022, he told the Guardian that the Tory government was “just stringing us along until people lose interest, and we die out.”"
All Governments are malign, it's just this Government is weapons grade corrupt, both in thought and actions.
I am surprised I am the only one on here interested in the Private Eye revelation about the Rayner soap opera. I thought you might have raised an eyebrow.
It surrounds Chief Constable Watson reopening the Rayner case on a word from James Daly who has made no secret that he believes Watson should replace Rowley at the Met. Doubtless all coincidental, so nothing to see there. However Watson does appear to have connections to the Conservative Party and has made Conference fringe speeches.
I have been very busy on other matters. I am about 8 threads behind. What is the issue?
Apologies to everyone else for reposting, but you did ask. I am genuinely outraged.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
In the end all they are doing is guaranteeing a hard right party in power in london, in the end
It’s so stupid. Look at what is happening across Europe. We are not immune to that, we are just a few years behind due to unique circumstances
I’m quite firmly on the right; but I’d rather we didn’t have a hard right government because that would be ugly and sad, yet I’d cope. It would do some things of which I approve (and others I don’t)
It would be absolute horrifying anathema to the PB lefties. Which is the deep irony here
Allez: enough. I am in a car park with a croissant. Time to go for a walk and find some megalithic NOOM
It's stupid but you've got to remember these people by and large are desperate narcissists who yearn for social acceptance more than anything else and doing strategic thinking of what's in their best long-term interests is far too much hard work that might involve some difficult choices and personal journeys. It's why we see so much playing to the gallery on here and indulgent wallowing in each other's 'like' count.
Away with that. I have zero respect for it and will be rude to such people who do it.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
Why would they do an offshore application unless they are sure they meet the criteria for asylum. Any economic migrant will still be looking at the boats route so again there needs to be a hefty deterrent.
This logic is apparently beyond PB’s very own doctor. Frankly, I fear for his patients
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
What happens when the Kenyan authorities decide they are fed up with Somali refugees heading to and waiting in Nairobi at the British Embassy and start rounding them up and bussing them back and the Somali authorities are waiting at the border for the returnees?
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
There are several hundred thousand Somali refugees already in Kenya, so they have a system already.
In fact, the entire North East province has been majority Somali since Colonial days.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
What happens when the Kenyan authorities decide they are fed up with Somali refugees heading to and waiting in Nairobi at the British Embassy and start rounding them up and bussing them back and the Somali authorities are waiting at the border for the returnees?
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
There are several hundred thousand Somali refugees already in Kenya, so they have a system already.
Yes. It's a real blind spot on the right that they think the only refugees in the world are those who make it to Britain.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
In the end all they are doing is guaranteeing a hard right party in power in london, in the end
It’s so stupid. Look at what is happening across Europe. We are not immune to that, we are just a few years behind due to unique circumstances
I’m quite firmly on the right; but I’d rather we didn’t have a hard right government because that would be ugly and sad, yet I’d cope. It would do some things of which I approve (and others I don’t)
It would be absolute horrifying anathema to the PB lefties. Which is the deep irony here
Allez: enough. I am in a car park with a croissant. Time to go for a walk and find some megalithic NOOM
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
Why would they do an offshore application unless they are sure they meet the criteria for asylum. Any economic migrant will still be looking at the boats route so again there needs to be a hefty deterrent.
This logic is apparently beyond PB’s very own doctor. Frankly, I fear for his patients
Fear not. Being fiercely competant in one sphere and batshit insane otherwise is remarkably common.
"The most common delusion of the intelligent man is that his expertise transfers from his own domain to others" - one of the German philosophers, IIRC.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If Yousaf goes, the members need to have a vote on who replaces him. The members may not want another progressive continuity candidate. They may, in fact, want someone from the centre. P.S. Just because Kate Forbes is pro business and pro prosperity, it doesn’t make her a Scottish HYFUD or a Scottish Casino.
As someone who thinks the present policy on immigration is nasty and brutal I’m finding myself conflicted by a report I read recently to the effect that many of the current boat passengers are Vietnamese. Now I’m aware that Vietnam isn’t paradise on earth, but I doubt very much that people trying to come here from there are in the same category, refugee-wise, as, for example, Afghans who worked for our Army and their families. I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back. I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
The Tories are failing to do the basic things well, and instead invoke fantasy solutions like Rwanda. These are not insoluble problems: they just require a bit of competence and a bit of spending.
The problem is the qualifying criteria for asylum are far too broad and provide all sorts of loopholes for it to be gamed in the name of economic migration.
What exactly do you propose to do about that?
The criteria have not significantly changed since 2010, yet deportations have collapsed under Conservative government.
I propose starting with the simple things to fix: deport those who don’t qualify under the existing rules in a timely manner; stop paying large sums of money to support large numbers of asylum seekers waiting in a backlog; allow those with valid claims to start new lives, so they can integrate into society and contribute economically.
The route to achieve this is to vote out the Conservatives. They’ve had 14 years of saying they’ll fix this and they haven’t. Stop rewarding failure.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.
I'm struck how Casino is happy to explain how his political opponents think, when he'd get pretty offended were we to return the favour.
FWIW, I'm happy to concede I have no idea what goes on in his noggin.
If you think I've got it wrong then please feel free to put forward your own counterargument and try to convince me.
The Left and Liberals need to find an answer to this and throwing around words like repugnant, immoral, disgusting and unethical aren't going to cut it in a democracy which wants this issue addressed - unless you want to end up with no democracy at all.
14 years of Tory rule hasn’t produced a solution either. If the current system isn’t working, blame the people running the current system. If there’s a threat to democracy, it’s from Tory failure.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
If you find them...
I seem to recall that the government’s own figures say that most of the people working illegally in the country are visa over-stayers, not those who have come over on small boats.
I have read 'Beasts' by John Crowley. This was published in 1976, making it his second published novel after 'The Deep' (1975). There are elements of the writing that make me think this might have been written before 'The Deep', however: his mastery of integrating the various elements is, to my mind, less complete and assured. The book is nominally set in a fairly near-future, post-disintegration USA, Crowley is less interested in explaining that future – and what explanation he does give might charitably be described as 'shaky' - than he is in examining the personalities who live out their lives against that background. Why do I say personalities, and not characters? Because Crowley's mastery lies in making these words on a page into real, living people, with interior lives, believable virtues and vices, and shifting motivations that they can, on occasion, justify to themselves. When humans like son-of-political-leader Sten Gregorius, ornithologist-turned-reluctant-teacher Loren, and video-artist-for-isolationist-environmentalist-cult Meric Landseer are foregrounded, the focus is on the shifting politics of this fragmented society, but the novel reaches its heights in the non-humans – Painter, Reynard, Sweets. Painter is a leo – a genetic hybrid of human and lion. There are enough leos for them to form their own society, albeit a marginal one in comparison to the human one. While leo thought processes are opaque to us, Painter at least has had enough contact with humans that we can understand a little how he, and his people, see the world, and Crowley achieves great things in portraying the alienness of this new race. Reynard is a genetic hybrid, of man and fox. Unlike the leos, he is sterile, and one of a kind. He is also a living embodiment of a character from folklore, the sly, trickster fox of medieval Europe. More human than a leo, and more integrated into human society. Sweets is a dog. A pure dog, not a hybrid, although he is intellectually enhanced by human intervention. Again, Crowley masterfully shows us how dogs *might* think, in their pack and in their fealty to man, or in Sweets' case, to Painter. Where some novels might be compared to a photographic portrait, others to a posed group, Crowley's writing always seems more like those shots of happenstance action: there are stories just moving on or offstage, just starting or ending, with just the hint of explanation. 'Beasts' has been described as the least of Crowley's work. As one of his earliest novels, that's not surprising, but that still puts it in the category of 'well worth your time', Thought-provoking and full of content.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
"Safe and legal routes" is effectively an open-door policy.
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.
Again with your rhetoric about “open-door” policies, and yet you never answer the point that immigration is at record highs under the Conservatives.
This post tells me rather a lot about you though and how many on the Liberal-Left perceive Conservatives. That is: we hate all forms of migration and immigration at all.
This is not the case. There's a whole world of difference between legal migration that we control, and its level, and people smugglers exploiting loopholes for those who have the temerity to take the piss in their desire to get here.
You need to think of it more in terms of how Brits feel about queue-jumping and fair play.
Words mean things. You’ve been incessantly talking about “open-door” policies on immigration and how your opponents want more migration, not about people smuggling. “Open-door” means letting in lots of immigrants, which is what the Conservative government is doing.
But, sure, if you want to change your argument, fine. We all agree that the Conservative Party stands for high immigration. The question is now how to stop people smuggling.
If you want to do something about people smuggling, great, let’s do something about people smuggling. I was speaking yesterday to someone running a charity helping those who have been trafficked. She was saying the victims are reluctant to come forward, because if they do, they can get deported. What about we help and reward the victims who help us find and stop the human traffickers? Like the Swiss do.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
Do you think the person interviewed by Channel 4 here should have been deported to Greece?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
My god. The idiocy
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
They want to move to totally open borders.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
In the end all they are doing is guaranteeing a hard right party in power in london, in the end
It’s so stupid. Look at what is happening across Europe. We are not immune to that, we are just a few years behind due to unique circumstances
I’m quite firmly on the right; but I’d rather we didn’t have a hard right government because that would be ugly and sad, yet I’d cope. It would do some things of which I approve (and others I don’t)
It would be absolute horrifying anathema to the PB lefties. Which is the deep irony here
Allez: enough. I am in a car park with a croissant. Time to go for a walk and find some megalithic NOOM
It's stupid but you've got to remember these people by and large are desperate narcissists who yearn for social acceptance more than anything else and doing strategic thinking of what's in their best long-term interests is far too much hard work that might involve some difficult choices and personal journeys. It's why we see so much playing to the gallery on here and indulgent wallowing in each other's 'like' count.
Away with that. I have zero respect for it and will be rude to such people who do it.
Weren’t you calling for fewer personal insults in politics yesterday?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
No but Somali refugees might well be able to safely apply to the British embassy in Nairobi or Addis. The point is that it doesn't need to be in their own country, or only in the UK itself.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
What happens when the Kenyan authorities decide they are fed up with Somali refugees heading to and waiting in Nairobi at the British Embassy and start rounding them up and bussing them back and the Somali authorities are waiting at the border for the returnees?
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
There are several hundred thousand Somali refugees already in Kenya, so they have a system already.
Yes. It's a real blind spot on the right that they think the only refugees in the world are those who make it to Britain.
The country currently hosting the highest number of refugees in the world right now is… Iran.
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
So your idea is to deport all the boat people who fail on the basis they didn’t apply legally in France? Which is nearly all of them? And you think you can persuade the French to let us open a processing centre? Where? Why? How?
And you think you can find somewhere to deport them to?
And you don’t think those that apply will try via boat anyway if they fail? And if they do you will simply deport them? To where? If they don’t have documents?
Somehow I don’t think you mean a word of this, and you know it’s all a load of nonsense. If you are convinced it is true and you can genuinely make it work you should stand for Parliament in Camden I’ll vote for you
In the end your solution is basically Rwanda but with an extra layer of unlikely French bureaucracy and you’re hopefully dreaming up countries to where we can easily return these people
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
Do you think the person interviewed by Channel 4 here should have been deported to Greece?
He could apply to the British Embassy in Greece under my proposal. Whether he gets accepted would be down to the merits of his application. There would be no reason to deport him to Greece as he would be there already.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
Do you think the person interviewed by Channel 4 here should have been deported to Greece?
He could apply to the British Embassy in Greece under my proposal. Whether he gets accepted would be down to the merits of his application. There would be no reason to deport him to Greece as he would be there already.
You've just said that applying somewhere else would be grounds to deny somebody, so why would he apply at the British Embassy knowing he would be refused?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
No I don't. I believe the Dublin Convention worked quite happily
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
So your idea is to deport all the boat people who fail on the basis they didn’t apply legally in France? Which is nearly all of them? And you think you can persuade the French to let us open a processing centre? Where? Why? How?
And you think you can find somewhere to deport them to?
And you don’t think those that apply will try via boat anyway if they fail? And if they do you will simply deport them? To where? If they don’t have documents?
Somehow I don’t think you mean a word of this, and you know it’s all a load of nonsense. If you are convinced it is true and you can genuinely make it work you should stand for Parliament in Camden I’ll vote for you
In the end your solution is basically Rwanda but with an extra layer of unlikely French bureaucracy and you’re hopefully dreaming up countries to where we can easily return these people
It's certainly true that it is difficult to deport people, though the last Labour government was much more effective at doing so. One of the many failings of this government is that they have allowed a backlog of applications to build up, and failed to match the previous governments number of deportations.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
So your idea is to deport all the boat people who fail on the basis they didn’t apply legally in France? Which is nearly all of them? And you think you can persuade the French to let us open a processing centre? Where? Why? How?
And you think you can find somewhere to deport them to?
And you don’t think those that apply will try via boat anyway if they fail? And if they do you will simply deport them? To where? If they don’t have documents?
Somehow I don’t think you mean a word of this, and you know it’s all a load of nonsense. If you are convinced it is true and you can genuinely make it work you should stand for Parliament in Camden I’ll vote for you
In the end your solution is basically Rwanda but with an extra layer of unlikely French bureaucracy and you’re hopefully dreaming up countries to where we can easily return these people
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
Do you think the person interviewed by Channel 4 here should have been deported to Greece?
He could apply to the British Embassy in Greece under my proposal. Whether he gets accepted would be down to the merits of his application. There would be no reason to deport him to Greece as he would be there already.
You've just said that applying somewhere else would be grounds to deny somebody, so why would he apply at the British Embassy knowing he would be refused?
I meant that if an arrival has applied to a British embassy elsewhere and be turned down they would be refused. I wasn't planning to make it a single application process for all countries.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
Are you arguing that the best way to stop immigration is to make Britain a shithole?
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
That is unfair. Johnson predicted the employment issue after leaving the EU, and he explained the shortfall would be made up "by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent".
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
Yep, we have a Labour shortage. It's one of the reasons that we can be relaxed about AI automating some jobs, as there are plenty of new jobs for them. Similar to other technological revolutions in the past.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
Yes. That is international law. As signed up to by the UK.
What I don't understand is this. You know those big trade deal treaties we need? How do we get those when we seem not to care about honouring treaties previously signed?
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
That is unfair. Johnson predicted the employment issue after leaving the EU, and he explained the shortfall would be made up "by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent".
Really? I didn't hear that at the time. Good for Boris for being honest and frank. What's the cause for complaint then?
The boats debate is PB at its most myopically stupid
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
If they have already been refused, then they can be deported immediately on arrival as not eligible to apply a second time. That is part of the point.
1. They just keep trying anyway
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
We have direct flights to Vietnam and they do accept our deportees. Next.
So they will just destroy their documents and say they are from somewhere else. What then?
Fingerprint them as part of their offshore application. Then it is easy to identify them and deport them.
Next
So then they won’t make an offshore application, no one will. They’ll probably try and get here illegally and directly. Possibly by boat?
Next
That's where the beauty of it lies. They can be denied asylum for not applying via the approved route available in France.
Next
So your idea is to deport all the boat people who fail on the basis they didn’t apply legally in France? Which is nearly all of them? And you think you can persuade the French to let us open a processing centre? Where? Why? How?
And you think you can find somewhere to deport them to?
And you don’t think those that apply will try via boat anyway if they fail? And if they do you will simply deport them? To where? If they don’t have documents?
Somehow I don’t think you mean a word of this, and you know it’s all a load of nonsense. If you are convinced it is true and you can genuinely make it work you should stand for Parliament in Camden I’ll vote for you
In the end your solution is basically Rwanda but with an extra layer of unlikely French bureaucracy and you’re hopefully dreaming up countries to where we can easily return these people
You didn't find any Noom, yet, then, Leon?
There’s some here. Not as much as I’d hoped at first glance. It’s too suburban. But it’s something
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Fair play, Casino believes the Rwanda rubbish is the answer. Leon on the other hand is merely a late model enfant terrible.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
That is unfair. Johnson predicted the employment issue after leaving the EU, and he explained the shortfall would be made up "by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent".
Really? I didn't hear that at the time. Good for Boris for being honest and frank. What's the cause for complaint then?
IIRC, polls show the large levels of legal immigration are not considered important by the public, leave voters included. So either:
a) they haven't noticed; or b) it really was about control and not raw numbers.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
That is unfair. Johnson predicted the employment issue after leaving the EU, and he explained the shortfall would be made up "by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent".
Really? I didn't hear that at the time. Good for Boris for being honest and frank. What's the cause for complaint then?
I suspect it was simply a throwaway line that nobody heard or understood. But for the only time in his entire life he told the truth.
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Fair play, Casino believes the Rwanda rubbish is the answer. Leon on the other hand is merely a late model enfant terrible.
The question we need to address is how much has Brexit contributed to the rise in immigration? We get a labour shortage and (supposedly) a massive rise in the average wage, and - lo and behold - everyone on earth starts beating a path to our door. This surely can't be a coincidence. Was this simply another aspect the Leavers just didn't think through?
That is unfair. Johnson predicted the employment issue after leaving the EU, and he explained the shortfall would be made up "by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent".
Really? I didn't hear that at the time. Good for Boris for being honest and frank. What's the cause for complaint then?
IIRC, polls show the large levels of legal immigration are not considered important by the public, leave voters included. So either:
a) they haven't noticed; or b) it really was about control and not raw numbers.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
This is exactly the way we should be doing things.
Err, no it isn't. You're quite a economically and constitutionally right-wing English nationalist who ameliorates this by having a totally open flank on migration and asylum, no doubt partly influenced by some political "heritage" in your extended family and the need to define yourself against that.
Fair enough. I'd feel conflicted by that too. But that's no reason to listen seriously to you on this subject, in the same way I don't for Simon Jenkins on defence or foreign policy - but do on many other matters.
I would suggest that I should be taken more seriously than you on this topic if only because I am actually backed up by our treaty obligations whereas you are quite content to trash them and suffer the consequences.
I also have the basic intellect (it doesn't actually take much) to find it somewhat perverse to pass a law declaring a country safe that has, in my adult lifetime, suffered one of the worst genocides in modern history.
Comments
Anyone refused entrance via these schemes and centres will simply try to get the UK by boat. As they are now. All you’re doing is making it a lot easier for some but the others will still come
All the options are unpleasant. There are no easy sweet options for liberals than there are for anyone else. Otherwise every country would be trying it
It’s either something like Rwanda - or something even harsher
Or total open borders
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
The existing treaties for international asylum were written in a different age for a different challenge and are totally unsustainable. You have a choice: find a solution to enforcing our borders, or expect a hard-right fascist government at some point in the future. Open borders might be a lovely idea in an ideal world but insisting on this principle as policy is deeply naive and totally devoid of any sense of realpolitik.
Think about it.
Essentially the bleaters want us to believe a conversation like this will happen
Scene. Dijon. UK asylum processing centre
UK dude: “sorry mr Minh. You’re refused. You’ve come all this way from Nha Trang Vietnam for nothing
Mr Minh: “ok. Ah well. It was worth the effort. I’m now going to go all the way back to Nha trang”
UK dude: “honestly? You’re not going to try by boat anyway?”
Me Minh: “god no. I mean I know a guy that owns a boat and it’s 2 hours by train to Calais but no, I won’t even try, because I respect Britain so much. I’m going to travel 7,982 miles back home on a sheep”
What exactly do you propose to do about that?
1) you are in control so can say how many you'll take in a year and if it's between 25k and 40k you're win by processing them outside the country.
2) just because you process someone it doesn't mean that they're successful. There's going to be a lot of failed processed people who will be deported.
3) if you do it correctly, with support from the French you can jointly process the people and force people to claim asylum in France.
The people trying to get over to the UK is as much an issue for the French as it is for us.
Under current laws it is only possible to claim asylum once you have actually entered the UK.
However, neither the current SNP nor, particularly, Alba, look like ideal fits for those two roles.
If he could get there from here, a threading the eye of the needle solution for Humza might look something like this, bearing in mind that it is Ash Regan rather than Alex Salmond that he needs to deal with.
The spin off of a new party to go into coalition with, or the dissolution (administration?) of the SNP and the formation of two new parties might find a place in the Nationalist movement for Regan whilst casting Salmond and Alba back into the wilderness. And Kate Forbes's place in all this is not difficult to imagine!
But, the cold water is that that merely gets Humza to level in Holyrood, there is no decent majority for him. He would have to carry such an offer unanimously within the SNP and, frankly, fat chance.
Nevertheless, what emerges from the Ashes of this in years to come, might just possibly be along these lines
EDIT: Sweet Jesus, autocorrect, HUmza!
Mr Minh: "where the fuck is Rwanda?"
Fair enough. I'd feel conflicted by that too. But that's no reason to listen seriously to you on this subject, in the same way I don't for Simon Jenkins on defence or foreign policy - but do on many other matters.
The Left and Liberals need to find an answer to this and throwing around words like repugnant, immoral, disgusting and unethical aren't going to cut it in a democracy which wants this issue addressed - unless you want to end up with no democracy at all.
https://x.com/PeteWishart/status/1784513352628101427
It’s all lovely wanting a nice friendly system where you can pop in to your nearest embassy and request asylum but not everyone is overly keen on what they see as a burden being dumped on their doorstep when they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
I know there are some absolute saints on the site and I know I’m a horrible person but I would love to know how many on here, swearing on their family’s lives level honesty, would actually be ok with a processing centre down the road from their house? It’s great to volunteer the good people of Nairobi etc but if they put the processing centre next door to Dr Rennard, hospital doctor of Lens in France he might be the purest Christian and not object but he might just think it’s going to smash property prices, he might get a bit Daily Mail and worry his daughter is going to be at risk and think, peut être non merçi.
https://twitter.com/StevenEdginton/status/1756002642084454686?lang=en
Rwanda will absolutely work if it is done properly. Ie a large proportion of people that come over by boat is sent to Rwanda for at least a few weeks.
It would need to be 20% minimum. Maybe a lot higher
Once you have a 1 in 3 chance or even 1 in 2, of ending up in central Africa then you won’t even bother trying to get to the UK. The boats will stop overnight. Which means people stop drowning and the people traffickers go out of business. It is also the fair answer for British voters who are already paying billions to house the people already here. It is actually the humane solution
However the Rwanda policy we have now does nothing like this. It is a few people on a few planes
Will it work? I highly doubt it. But there is a slender chance that just the threat of Rwanda (and maybe a couple of actual flights) will do the job. The Irish reports hint that this could be true
I presume Sunak is praying this is the case. If it is he will get a major boost. But I’m very skeptical it will work
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
This is not the case. There's a whole world of difference between legal migration that we control, and its level, and people smugglers exploiting loopholes for those who have the temerity to take the piss in their desire to get here.
You need to think of it more in terms of how Brits feel about queue-jumping and fair play.
And
2. Often; you have no idea where to deport them, and even if you do, is it even practical?
Next
Also as explained by several it is possible to argue two things at the same time that aren't mutually exclusive. You are probably right that if effective the argument that it isn't moral may fail with public opinion and hence the focus on it not working, but that doesn't make it a perfectly good argument. I have plenty of views that are minority views. That doesn't mean I should give up on them and if I have another supporting argument that has a majority view I would be an idiot to focus on the less persuasive argument wouldn't I.
That's what they believe and that's where their sympathies lie. The Economist (the in-house journal of Da Libz) actually campaigns for this.
I once read an article in there (it might have even been Bagehot) arguing for this for the GDP boost, and that whilst the population would increase to 120 million with some cultural integration challenges that it'd all be OK because we could fund English language courses to help.
What we're seeing here is their world-view colliding at high-speed with reality at the front-line of "Rwanda", and they really really don't like it or want to do the hard thinking about what that really means.
EXCLUSIVE Home Office to detain asylum seekers across UK from tomorrow in shock #Rwanda operation - me with
@syalrajeev
https://t.co/NDhJHdeOuL
@AamerAnwar
responds: “Offshoring people 5,000 miles away is nothing more than a grubby cash for people plan. I suspect in the coming days we will see an explosion of the spirit of Kenmure Street across the UK, opposing a policy that will lead to misery, self-harm and death"
Yes, there is a genuine problem. But "We must do something and this is something - therefore we must do this" is a trope as old as time.
And you have spent the weekend trying to claim that the Rwanda can't be both cruel and ineffective. It can very easily be both.
It doesn't require much thinking to recognise that.
If they want to change it then let people who want to organise their own pension by being able to opt out and use their money to buy a far better pension than they get for 50 years of paying into state one.
It’s so stupid. Look at what is happening across Europe. We are not immune to that, we are just a few years behind due to unique circumstances
I’m quite firmly on the right; but I’d rather we didn’t have a hard right government because that would be ugly and sad, yet I’d cope. It would do some things of which I approve (and others I don’t)
It would be absolute horrifying anathema to the PB lefties. Which is the deep irony here
Allez: enough. I am in a car park with a croissant. Time to go for a walk and find some megalithic NOOM
There are some interesting dividing lines now opening up between the Conservatives and Labour on welfare, immigration and defence, which the latter are yet to develop any answers toward. This could be significant for the election.
Against that, of course, there's the parlous state of the NHS, which, despite having 188 squillion pounds a year spent on it each year, still seems to perform as if it hasn't had a penny but, without Labour pledging to raise tax and borrowing to fund massive sustained real-terms increases, it can't do much about.
SKS knows all this, he's not stupid, and will need to develop some answers. But there's enough emerging evidence now that his main interests are in soft nationalisation, expansion of the public sector and pretending there won't be any extra tax (spoiler: there will) to know where he's going.
And, now, Sunday lunch beckons. Good day.
Next
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1784546082237632967
Quite an achievement to be rebuked by Formula One for trying to make money.
Presumably the solution is to bung them some money.
Next
https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1783172206886826049
Away with that. I have zero respect for it and will be rude to such people who do it.
(Open to correction)
"The most common delusion of the intelligent man is that his expertise transfers from his own domain to others" - one of the German philosophers, IIRC.
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
I propose starting with the simple things to fix: deport those who don’t qualify under the existing rules in a timely manner; stop paying large sums of money to support large numbers of asylum seekers waiting in a backlog; allow those with valid claims to start new lives, so they can integrate into society and contribute economically.
The route to achieve this is to vote out the Conservatives. They’ve had 14 years of saying they’ll fix this and they haven’t. Stop rewarding failure.
The book is nominally set in a fairly near-future, post-disintegration USA, Crowley is less interested in explaining that future – and what explanation he does give might charitably be described as 'shaky' - than he is in examining the personalities who live out their lives against that background. Why do I say personalities, and not characters? Because Crowley's mastery lies in making these words on a page into real, living people, with interior lives, believable virtues and vices, and shifting motivations that they can, on occasion, justify to themselves.
When humans like son-of-political-leader Sten Gregorius, ornithologist-turned-reluctant-teacher Loren, and video-artist-for-isolationist-environmentalist-cult Meric Landseer are foregrounded, the focus is on the shifting politics of this fragmented society, but the novel reaches its heights in the non-humans – Painter, Reynard, Sweets.
Painter is a leo – a genetic hybrid of human and lion. There are enough leos for them to form their own society, albeit a marginal one in comparison to the human one. While leo thought processes are opaque to us, Painter at least has had enough contact with humans that we can understand a little how he, and his people, see the world, and Crowley achieves great things in portraying the alienness of this new race.
Reynard is a genetic hybrid, of man and fox. Unlike the leos, he is sterile, and one of a kind. He is also a living embodiment of a character from folklore, the sly, trickster fox of medieval Europe. More human than a leo, and more integrated into human society.
Sweets is a dog. A pure dog, not a hybrid, although he is intellectually enhanced by human intervention. Again, Crowley masterfully shows us how dogs *might* think, in their pack and in their fealty to man, or in Sweets' case, to Painter.
Where some novels might be compared to a photographic portrait, others to a posed group, Crowley's writing always seems more like those shots of happenstance action: there are stories just moving on or offstage, just starting or ending, with just the hint of explanation.
'Beasts' has been described as the least of Crowley's work. As one of his earliest novels, that's not surprising, but that still puts it in the category of 'well worth your time', Thought-provoking and full of content.
Next
But, sure, if you want to change your argument, fine. We all agree that the Conservative Party stands for high immigration. The question is now how to stop people smuggling.
If you want to do something about people smuggling, great, let’s do something about people smuggling. I was speaking yesterday to someone running a charity helping those who have been trafficked. She was saying the victims are reluctant to come forward, because if they do, they can get deported. What about we help and reward the victims who help us find and stop the human traffickers? Like the Swiss do.
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1783037978094293219
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
And you think you can find somewhere to deport them to?
And you don’t think those that apply will try via boat anyway if they fail? And if they do you will simply deport them? To where? If they don’t have documents?
Somehow I don’t think you mean a word of this, and you know it’s all a load of nonsense. If you are convinced it is true and you can genuinely make it work you should stand for Parliament in Camden
I’ll vote for you
In the end your solution is basically Rwanda but with an extra layer of unlikely French bureaucracy and you’re hopefully dreaming up countries to where we can easily return these people
Probably the first serious dollop of it on this trip
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
An I allowed to call things extreme, or is that verboten?
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
What I don't understand is this. You know those big trade deal treaties we need? How do we get those when we seem not to care about honouring treaties previously signed?
The alignments of Lagatjar
a) they haven't noticed; or
b) it really was about control and not raw numbers.
Then, on the rebound, he asks wee Dougie Ross to take him to the prom and gets a knock back.
Humza Yousaf is having the worst week.
https://x.com/JournoStephen/status/1784552326264402110
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
I also have the basic intellect (it doesn't actually take much) to find it somewhat perverse to pass a law declaring a country safe that has, in my adult lifetime, suffered one of the worst genocides in modern history.