The problem is you can only announce something so many times before it falls flat. Ask any politician that.
Yes, this is the first time has has announced it in this form; but a few years back he was saying Tesla cars would pay for themselves when used as autonomous taxis. Which again was a reannouncement from a few years earlier.
I don't understand how that poll would result in the LDs losing 2 seats according to the seats projector. I would expect gains in the Tory/LD heartlands with LD and Reform up and Lab and Tory's down in the poll numbers.
Swing of 1% from LD to Tory since the GE on that poll which would see the Tories gain Ely and Cambridgeshire E and Hampshire NE back from the LDs
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Anyone else watching the SpaceX Starship test flight, where they are going to try and hover the rocket alongside the near the tower on the way back, they reach out and grab it with a large metal arm?
Looks like it’s scheduled for around 12:20 UK time, it’s either going to be one of the most spectacular things done in years in the field of aerospace, or it’s going to go horribly wrong and generate a somewhat massive explosion!
Time to repost this from Asif Siddiq's excellent: "The Challenge to Apollo". It is Valeriy A Menshikov's memory of the explosion after the second N1 flight.
" We were all looking in the direction of the launch, where the hundred-meter pyramid of the rocket was being readied to be hurled into space. Ignition, the flash of flame from the engines, and the rocket slowly rose on a column of flame . And suddenly, at the place where it had just been, a bright fireball. Not one of us understood anything at first. A terrible purple-black mushroom cloud, so familiar from the pictures from the textbook on weapons of mass destruction. The steppe began to rock and the air began to shake, and all of the soldiers and officers froze. "
" Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around-the steppe was trembling like a vibration test jig, thundering, rumbling. whistling. gnashing-all mixed together in some terrible. seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare . .. the thick wave from the explosion passed over us. sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away. and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. A 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof of the installation and testing wing, seven kilometers from the launch pad. "
" We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified-the windows and doors were smashed out. the iron entrance gate was askew. the equipment was scattered about with the light of dawn and was turned to stone-the steppe was literally strewn with dead animals and birds. Where so many of them came from and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand."
In the film of it, you can see people catching fire as they ran….
Yes, that's quite a horrific film. But Brazil had something similar in the 1980s, where >20 people died. From memory, the stage started whilst the rocket was on the ground, a few days before the planned launch.
Also, I'd say that if a Saturn V had gone up on, or near, the pad, the devastation would have been massive (NASA did a study onto the effects of a Shuttle explosion, and the results would not have been pretty...). Incidentally, that N1 rocket blast only used up a small fraction of the available fuel.
The shuttle estimates proved to be way off - they assumed an instantaneous detonation of all the hydrogen and oxygen.
Challenger showed that you actually get a deflagration with cryogenics as they mix. As did the high altitude breakup of Super Heavy.
The biggest miss was the solid boosters -assumed to pretty much sit there - they could fly off like ICBMs, and/or break up into large, heavy, burning fragments. See the failed Titan launch from the 80s
I'm talking about a study done in 2003/4 after the Colombia disaster, as part of their rework of the program.
Which, IIRC, pointed out that deflagration would be the outcome of a pad explosion. But that the SRBs would do most of the damage. The extreme worst case was the SRB launching themselves, then requiring the destruct to be activated - the thick steel cases would form huge bombs. At ground level or low altitude, the damage would be pretty bad.
I ended up corresponding with the late Danny Deager (ex-Shuttle guy) on the sim he created that proved that SRB destruct was a lethal danger for Ares I. I adapted his code to run on GPU.
He managed to get this into the report on Ares I. Which was part of the reason The Stick died.
This ? ..A study released in July 2009 by the 45th Space Wing of the US Air Force concluded that an abort 30–60 seconds after launch would have a ≈100% chance of killing all crew, due to the capsule being engulfed until ground impact by a cloud of 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) solid propellant fragments, which would melt the capsule's nylon parachute material. NASA's study showed the crew capsule would have flown beyond the more severe danger...
And if it's not a rude question, what is it that you do ?
Software engineer
Yes - that’s the one. They re-wrote Danny’s code. He was a retired NASA engineer and wrote it in Excel and C#, IIRC.
I rewrote it in CUDA (graphics card language from NVIDIA) so it would run billions of simulations. Just confirmed what he had found. Just like about 20 others did - he posted his Excel model on nasaspaceflight.com. There’s a lot of real rocket engineers there - current and building the rockets you see fly.
The problem is you can only announce something so many times before it falls flat. Ask any politician that.
Yes, this is the first time has has announced it in this form; but a few years back he was saying Tesla cars would pay for themselves when used as autonomous taxis. Which again was a reannouncement from a few years earlier.
Tesla’s share price dropped 7% after the robotaxi launch. Investors weren’t as impressed by Optimus as me
However in the 6 months prior to the launch those shares rose by about 45%
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
Rwanda isn't a failed scheme, it's a scrapped scheme. And it was already working in some capacity, or SKS wouldn't be the toast of the boat people.
And it was/is flawed in many ways, but was still a lot better than not having Rwanda.
Number of people coming over on boats is down. How does that show Starmer is the “toast of the boat people”?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
Indeed. Which is why I would not call it “Islamophobia” but @bondegezou probably would
Fact is certain kinds of migrants assimilate better and are a net benefit, and data from Denmark and Netherlands - much more honest than us - shows that some kinds of migrants are a net drain on resources (and bring severe social issues as you say)
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
If we can find somewhere where we can fly all immigrants to for processing in a humane environment that does not turn into a concentration camp with proper access to legal advice and proper regulatory oversight then sure, I would support that.
I still think that we need heavy penalties (with proper enforcement) on British people for employing people without the right to work to tackle the demand side.
The problem is you can only announce something so many times before it falls flat. Ask any politician that.
Yes, this is the first time has has announced it in this form; but a few years back he was saying Tesla cars would pay for themselves when used as autonomous taxis. Which again was a reannouncement from a few years earlier.
Tesla’s share price dropped 7% after the robotaxi launch. Investors weren’t as impressed by Optimus as me
However in the 6 months prior to the launch those shares rose by about 45%
Tesla's share price is pretty much where it was two years ago, with none of the massive peaks it saw a year earlier. It may just be yet another stock, however much the rampers on Twix try to improve the share price.
The problem is you can only announce something so many times before it falls flat. Ask any politician that.
Yes, this is the first time has has announced it in this form; but a few years back he was saying Tesla cars would pay for themselves when used as autonomous taxis. Which again was a reannouncement from a few years earlier.
Tesla’s share price dropped 7% after the robotaxi launch. Investors weren’t as impressed by Optimus as me
However in the 6 months prior to the launch those shares rose by about 45%
Tesla's share price is pretty much where it was two years ago, with none of the massive peaks it saw a year earlier. It may just be yet another stock, however much the rampers on Twix try to improve the share price.
Fair
I’m not sure Elon is too fussed about his share price anyway
He’s one of the richest men in the world, maybe the most powerful non politician in the world - only Zuck rivals him, and Zuck doesn’t have a starlink or SpaceX. He is also changing the world
That Optimus robot is incredible. I still can’t quite believe sci fi is coming to life in our time. Its amazing
Historians will see Musk as a titanic figure. Flawed but titanic
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
If we can find somewhere where we can fly all immigrants to for processing in a humane environment that does not turn into a concentration camp with proper access to legal advice and proper regulatory oversight then sure, I would support that.
I still think that we need heavy penalties (with proper enforcement) on British people for employing people without the right to work to tackle the demand side.
Really is a shame that Starmer scrapped the agreement with Rwanda then. If he wanted to accept those with valid claims back, he could have.
Sadly, the third of the awesome trifecta, the Falcon Heavy launch of Europa Clipper, is now not going to occur today.
I think that one is looking like tomorrow now.
Some of us are old enough to remember when there was three months between Shuttle launches, now there’s three rockets going up in two days!
There have been periods like this before for frequency, especially in the 1980s. It's just that they were not broadcast, and the rockets generally not that large, and many were Russian.
I've said this before, but in the mid-1990s I was mad on the DC-X Clipper VTVL rocket. I'd hear about a potential launch on the Internet, but then I would have to wait days or weeks for any substantial info or video on it. Nowadays we're getting much more info, even (in a limited manner) from the Chinese.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
what bollox, typical woke bleeding heart liberal twat. What bit of overcrowded and fed up with taking in everybody's flotsam and jetsam when we cannot even see to our own people. Get a life.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
If we can find somewhere where we can fly all immigrants to for processing in a humane environment that does not turn into a concentration camp with proper access to legal advice and proper regulatory oversight then sure, I would support that.
I still think that we need heavy penalties (with proper enforcement) on British people for employing people without the right to work to tackle the demand side.
Really is a shame that Starmer scrapped the agreement with Rwanda then. If he wanted to accept those with valid claims back, he could have.
You really have no idea what the Rwanda scheme was do you? It was never a processing centre. We did the processing then shipped people off to Rwanda where they seemingly met Rwanda’s criteria. It was never a holding area and it meets none of my requirements.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
Yes watch them do a total handbrake turn
I suspect there won't be many words like 'inhumane' flying around.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
God this shit is so juvenile and boring get a life
If the Tories are now tied with Labour on VI (though both of course are polling very low VI scores) this does potentially change the narrative around the new leader.
If the Tories are polling around the same level as Labour it doesn’t feel to me like there’ll be much willingness to change the leader mid-Parliament.
Obviously it’s very early days. But the fundamentals look to me relatively strong for the new leader’s position, certainly to start with.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
God this shit is so juvenile and boring get a life
Rwanda will only work - with your requirements - if we turn down many if not the majority of claims. So we will also have to change our criteria for accepting asylum - and leave the ECHR etc
Or do what Poland is doing under the “moderate” Tusk. Suspend asylum entirely
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
There are right wing people being elected in Europe because they reflect voters actual concerns, how dare you call them Nazis. Hurrah, there are actual Nazis being elected in Europe!
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
God this shit is so juvenile and boring get a life
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
God this shit is so juvenile and boring get a life
Rwanda will only work - with your requirements - if we turn down many if not the majority of claims. So we will also have to change our criteria for accepting asylum - and leave the ECHR etc
Or do what Poland is doing under the “moderate” Tusk. Suspend asylum entirely
All this is coming. Brace
I don’t disagree with you. What Human Right would we be breaching?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
Well the Italian scheme is immediately different to Rwanda as the people relocated to Albania for processing still have the ability to have their asylum application to Italy approved whereas once you were in Rwanda that was it.
Wait, so now you accept that they ARE doing offshore processing. Ok. So then it just becomes a question of finding the right country and bribing it. And you’re good with that
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Such people would be 100% fine with it if it were the EU doing it and not the UK.
Yup, this is the hypocrisy. When the EU unveils their scheme and deals with Rwanda etc... suddenly all those people who opposed the UK doing similar will find that their moral objections have disappeared and the same judges who blocked the UK scheme will waive the EU scheme through unimpeded.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
Tories’ problem in Scotland for decades.
Alex Salmond is gone now so the patrimonial, homophobic and misogynistic culture of Scotland will be slightly lessened. Only slightly.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
Tories’ problem in Scotland for decades.
Alex Salmond is gone now so the patrimonial, homophobic and misogynistic culture of Scotland will be slightly lessened. Only slightly.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
While the rallies are no doubt fun for everyone involved, and provide a lot of content for the campaign, at some point you need to stop talking to the faithful and start getting out the vote and working on the few undecideds in the States that matter. There is some evidence of the GOP putting more effort into early voting than in 2020, but that’s working from a very low base indeed.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
Hillary wasn't a great candidate, she represented a third consecutive term, and she got shafted at the end by the FBI, but she only just missed. So I don't think you can assume everything about her strategy was wrong. If Kamala Harris had the option to be in the position of the Hillary Clinton campaign but with a fresh random roll of the cosmic dice for the last two weeks then she'd take it.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
James Cleverly spent a lot on social media advertising too.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Missed posting on the last thread completely, but RIP Salmond. He had his faults, and I disagreed fundamentally with his politics, but he was a consummate politician and without doubt advanced the cause of Scottish independence.
Who do you regard as a hero, the hapless governor of California who can't stop the homeless destroying his cities, or the guy who sends the biggest rocket in human history into space, then floats it down so it can be "caught" by giant metal chopsticks
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
I don't understand how that poll would result in the LDs losing 2 seats according to the seats projector. I would expect gains in the Tory/LD heartlands with LD and Reform up and Lab and Tory's down in the poll numbers.
Swing of 1% from LD to Tory since the GE on that poll which would see the Tories gain Ely and Cambridgeshire E and Hampshire NE back from the LDs
Yep you are right, but that is the problem with uniform swing. The real world doesn't work like that. If there was a big swing I would agree (and obviously it would be more seats), but it is 1% and in both those there would be Labour and Green votes, but in particularly Labour votes, to squeeze.
Reform are doing well so there is no help from them for the Tories and the LDs have 11.6K and 6.4K respectively to squeeze and having already won it is so much easier. I would think the same is true for a handful of other seats they are just behind in.
So although there is 1% from the LDs to the Tories in that poll (which is nothing) I would expect with Labour dropping and Reform doing well and ruthless targeting the LDs wouldn't go down by 2 but up by 2 or 3.
Uniform swing is not your friend when dealing with LD targeting. It is much more applicable when dealing with Con/Lab and with bigger swings (eg that wiped out the LDs)
PS it is notable that it is only 2 seats. The LDs did get some big margins, which makes you wonder whether there were more on offer.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
James Cleverly spent a lot on social media advertising too.
The incremental value of paid social marketing is vanishingly small. It only makes sense towards the end IMO to get the vote out. Social media ads will not change a single person's mind.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
Hillary wasn't a great candidate, she represented a third consecutive term, and she got shafted at the end by the FBI, but she only just missed. So I don't think you can assume everything about her strategy was wrong. If Kamala Harris had the option to be in the position of the Hillary Clinton campaign but with a fresh random roll of the cosmic dice for the last two weeks then she'd take it.
I think Harris's campaign is vastly superior to Clinton's. She is ruthlessly disciplined, none of that deploarables nonsense, she is skilful at avoiding answers, she has somehow made herself look the change candidate despite being VP for 4 years, she has raised incredible sums of money in only 2 months and is looking to spend it effectively with GOTV operation on a scale even the US has not seen before. She is utterly focused on the swing states, she has now done the interviews, done the debate (and won), done the rallies, its really gone like clockwork.
Her latest, again compared with the Hillary collapse which they tried to cover up and cost her dearly, is releasing her medical records and daring Trump to do the same. She may or may not be a good President but she knows her business and learns fast when she does something less than well.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Are we still at the ‘don’t dare call Trump a Nazi’ stage or have we reached ‘it’s the stupid libtards’ fault that Trump’s a Nazi’? I guess we’ll find out on Nov 6th.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
James Cleverly spent a lot on social media advertising too.
Yes, but he had to rely the the ditzyist electorate in the known world: Tory MPs. What a disaster.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
Which is why I call this a tragedy. We should never have reached a stage where nice democratic countries start voting for fascists in despair
I am still hopeful we can avoid this in the UK. Probably the best result for the country would be a reform type party in power. Very very strict on migration and asylum but never going to do evil stuff like deportation
Going back to the polls it seems clear that Reform now have a solid fifth of the country, or thereabouts. This may not change as long as Farage is around. They may even grow bigger
This shows the Tories have acted sanely in proposing Jenrick and Badenoch. With reform on 20% the Tories cannot possibly win unless they do a deal with Farage. And only Jenrick and Badenoch - deeply flawed as they are - seem prepared to do that and are aware of the necessity
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Wait. That’s racist. Remember all cultures are equally valid - Afghanistan under the Taliban is just as valid as Italy in the Renaissance or Finland today, so we must welcome them all equally. And if you dare to suggest otherwise - like Kemi Badenoch - everyone goes mad
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Yes, it took my wife 7 years to get citizenship and she's an AML investigator for a fund and has in her career contributed more in tax to the treasury than many will do in a lifetime.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Going back to the polls it seems clear that Reform now have a solid fifth of the country, or thereabouts. This may not change as long as Farage is around. They may even grow bigger
This shows the Tories have acted sanely in proposing Jenrick and Badenoch. With reform on 20% the Tories cannot possibly win unless they do a deal with Farage. And only Jenrick and Badenoch - deeply flawed as they are - seem prepared to do that and are aware of the necessity
If the One Nation faction respond by undermining the new leader and plotting to take over then they'll only hasten the day when Reform eclipse the Tories.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
You write as if our country doesn’t have lots of homegrown misogynistic and homophobic people!
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Do you mean like we had as members of the EU?
Eh?
When we were in the EU the New Zealand doctor and the illiterate Somali would still need to wait the same amount of time for settled status.
What did our membership of the EU have to do with anything?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
You write as if our country doesn’t have lots of homegrown misogynistic and homophobic people!
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
You write as if our country doesn’t have lots of homegrown misogynistic and homophobic people!
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
The quality of scandals in this country has dropped alarmingly. There was a time when a front-page "VIP escort" story didn't involve a police motorcade...
I blame that Starmer.
I don't think scandals of the sex variety are really allowed to happen any more. Post-Leveson, not only do the papers have to stand things up (rightly) a judge has to agree that they are in the public interest. It's very unhealthy, and part of the reason the UK is waaay down the list of free countries with some rather unsavoury friends these days.
Consenting adults having sex should not be considered to be a scandal.
Boris here, Trump and arguably even Clinton over there show that consensual sex is not that interesting any more. Was Cecil Parkinson the last politician whose career was ended by an affair?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Though it isn't true. Both Kiwi and the Somali have to pay for and pass the life in UK test, and one will clearly find both the language and questions easier. If indeed the Somali can learn English (or Welsh) and learn both to read and to know the content of the test, have they really not assimilated?
Additionally the Kiwi can vote as a Commonwealth citizen in the meantime, while the Somali can not.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Are we still at the ‘don’t dare call Trump a Nazi’ stage or have we reached ‘it’s the stupid libtards’ fault that Trump’s a Nazi’? I guess we’ll find out on Nov 6th.
I think I can answer this now. If he wins it will be the fault of the Democrats and all the people who didn't vote for him.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
Hillary wasn't a great candidate, she represented a third consecutive term, and she got shafted at the end by the FBI, but she only just missed. So I don't think you can assume everything about her strategy was wrong. If Kamala Harris had the option to be in the position of the Hillary Clinton campaign but with a fresh random roll of the cosmic dice for the last two weeks then she'd take it.
I think Harris's campaign is vastly superior to Clinton's. She is ruthlessly disciplined, none of that deploarables nonsense, she is skilful at avoiding answers, she has somehow made herself look the change candidate despite being VP for 4 years, she has raised incredible sums of money in only 2 months and is looking to spend it effectively with GOTV operation on a scale even the US has not seen before. She is utterly focused on the swing states, she has now done the interviews, done the debate (and won), done the rallies, its really gone like clockwork.
Her latest, again compared with the Hillary collapse which they tried to cover up and cost her dearly, is releasing her medical records and daring Trump to do the same. She may or may not be a good President but she knows her business and learns fast when she does something less than well.
She had no control on this but would have been better if the one and only debate was nearer the election.
Memories are fading already as to how shit Trump was in that debate.
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
I just dunno. They are both highly imperfect. I change by mind hourly (unusual for me)
However I do now see that the Tories MUST have a leader able to deal with reform. Farage is not going away
Jenrick will definitely be a disaster.
Badenoch might be a disaster.
That's my view.
Jenrick does have an unfortunate mien. Tory bastard etc. Plus he seems quite dodgy
But Badenoch is lightweight, globalist, unpopular with staff and prone to tantrums and gaffes
On the upside, whoever wins will be facing Starmer who is now the most unpopular new prime minister in British history and has no obvious way of turning around these perceptions
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
I just dunno. They are both highly imperfect. I change by mind hourly (unusual for me)
However I do now see that the Tories MUST have a leader able to deal with reform. Farage is not going away
Jenrick will definitely be a disaster.
Badenoch might be a disaster.
That's my view.
Jenrick does have an unfortunate mien. Tory bastard etc. Plus he seems quite dodgy
But Badenoch is lightweight, globalist, unpopular with staff and prone to tantrums and gaffes
On the upside, whoever wins will be facing Starmer who is now the most unpopular new prime minister in British history and has no obvious way of turning around these perceptions
Maybe the Tory leader just has to be “OK”
You don't really know for sure how good a leader someone will be until they get the gig - unless they've performed a very similar role before. The biggest question for me is how well these two will learn from their previous and future mistakes.
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
I just dunno. They are both highly imperfect. I change by mind hourly (unusual for me)
However I do now see that the Tories MUST have a leader able to deal with reform. Farage is not going away
If Farage is willing to check his ego and listen to someone who knows how to campaign in an FPTP system, Reform might be dangerous, but the history of Ukip and Reform so far tells us he isn't so it isn't.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
Its not directly to do with the religion but what we do not want is people who come from a very different culture than our own, patrimonial, misogynistic and homophobic, and that believe in those values and would look to uphold them here.
You write as if our country doesn’t have lots of homegrown misogynistic and homophobic people!
Let's investugate why HK immigrants are so good: law-abiding high skilled don't demand specual treatment or changes to the laws keen to integrate culturally look like us
Now it's entirely possible for Islamic immigrants to ticn all those boxes. @TSE's parents, for example; and similarly the parents of a friend of mine who came from Pakistan in the 70s. But it's also the case that a disproportionate number of immigrants who don't fit tgis description come from countries like Somalia, Syria and Yemen which happen to be Islamic. I'd certainly have no problem closing the door to immugration from these countries. Sure, the vast majority from these places are decent human beings and many will tick some of the boxes above. But how many murderers, terrorists, low level crooks and west-rejecters are we happy to let in alongside them?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
Which is why I call this a tragedy. We should never have reached a stage where nice democratic countries start voting for fascists in despair
I am still hopeful we can avoid this in the UK. Probably the best result for the country would be a reform type party in power. Very very strict on migration and asylum but never going to do evil stuff like deportation
So we can head off fascism by voting for the far right. What a rum state of affairs.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Do you mean like we had as members of the EU?
Eh?
When we were in the EU the New Zealand doctor and the illiterate Somali would still need to wait the same amount of time for settled status.
What did our membership of the EU have to do with anything?
You were frothing about how “political correctness” prevents discrimination in immigration policy when it clearly doesn’t as we had just that as part of the EU.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Do you mean like we had as members of the EU?
Eh?
When we were in the EU the New Zealand doctor and the illiterate Somali would still need to wait the same amount of time for settled status.
What did our membership of the EU have to do with anything?
You were frothing about how “political correctness” prevents discrimination in immigration policy when it clearly doesn’t as we had just that as part of the EU.
So the benefit of EU membership was that it made discrimination socially acceptable?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
Which is why I call this a tragedy. We should never have reached a stage where nice democratic countries start voting for fascists in despair
I am still hopeful we can avoid this in the UK. Probably the best result for the country would be a reform type party in power. Very very strict on migration and asylum but never going to do evil stuff like deportation
So we can head off fascism by voting for the far right. What a rum state of affairs.
A key issue is we seem to have a Home Office and associated state apparatus that, even if there was a policy very strict immigration, wouldn't be able to deliver.
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
Hillary wasn't a great candidate, she represented a third consecutive term, and she got shafted at the end by the FBI, but she only just missed. So I don't think you can assume everything about her strategy was wrong. If Kamala Harris had the option to be in the position of the Hillary Clinton campaign but with a fresh random roll of the cosmic dice for the last two weeks then she'd take it.
I think Harris's campaign is vastly superior to Clinton's. She is ruthlessly disciplined, none of that deploarables nonsense, she is skilful at avoiding answers, she has somehow made herself look the change candidate despite being VP for 4 years, she has raised incredible sums of money in only 2 months and is looking to spend it effectively with GOTV operation on a scale even the US has not seen before. She is utterly focused on the swing states, she has now done the interviews, done the debate (and won), done the rallies, its really gone like clockwork.
Her latest, again compared with the Hillary collapse which they tried to cover up and cost her dearly, is releasing her medical records and daring Trump to do the same. She may or may not be a good President but she knows her business and learns fast when she does something less than well.
She had no control on this but would have been better if the one and only debate was nearer the election.
Memories are fading already as to how shit Trump was in that debate.
Yes, as a said a couple of weeks ago my impression is that each time there has been a big event, like her nomination or the debate or her interviews, she has taken a step forward but the general drift is towards Trump and that advantage soon fades back to the original position which is both within the margin of error and incredibly close in the key states. Some, perhaps most, of that drift, is because being an incumbent is incredibly tricky after the last few years.
Its worrying. This is still a coin toss and the opportunities for further boosts are quite limited. The best hope is that Trump harms himself but its hard to imagine how much more obnoxious and outrageous he can get.
There is no way this gets decided on November 5th. Given the staggering incompetence of the American counting system it may be a couple of weeks before we know who has won. And that's assuming the courts don't get heavily involved.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
Austria, the FPO was founded by a Nazi and SS officer.
The FPO are close to being actual Fascists, and they don't mind admitting it. They positively revel in it
Yes and that's what got them the votes, people across Europe are fed up with illegal immigration and the crime and third world attitudes they bring with them.
The whole of the West is being radicalised against the liberal consensus of the postwar era
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
Fundamentally you can't allow 20m+ people from another part of the world arrive to Europe without any plan to integrate them and push out the more third world attitudes they bring with them. These people escape from their third world shit holes but then create the same third world shit hole culture in small ghettoes in Europe, contribute very little and suck on the welfare state of free healthcare and free education for their kids.
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
I fear this is actually going to end in "remigration". It should never have got this far but the Left - assisted by spineless rightwing parties in places like the UK - has pushed migration to an insane level that no country will forever tolerate. And the only way its impact can be reversed is if these countries start DEPORTING - "remigrating" - people
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
And my worry as someone who isn't white is that my family gets caught up in all of this shite. One of the reasons I'd want very tough migration rules and very strict integration rules is so that British Asians and Black British families who have been here for two or three generations and who have integrated properly and contribute positively both to the culture and wealth of the nation aren't targeted.
We need to discriminate much more when it comes to integration rules. At the moment, a British-descended New Zealand doctor who has married an Englishwoman and an illiterate Somali peasant granted asylum both need to wait five years to get settled. This is obviously ridiculous. The former will almost certainly assimilate far quicker than the latter, but political correctness refuses to let us draft rules to reflect this staggering obvious fact.
Do you mean like we had as members of the EU?
Eh?
When we were in the EU the New Zealand doctor and the illiterate Somali would still need to wait the same amount of time for settled status.
What did our membership of the EU have to do with anything?
You were frothing about how “political correctness” prevents discrimination in immigration policy when it clearly doesn’t as we had just that as part of the EU.
So the benefit of EU membership was that it made discrimination socially acceptable?
I made no comment as to the acceptableness or otherwise of it as a principle neither is that relevant to the point they were making.
I'd also like to say that despite my misgivings I'm going to cast my vote for Kemi and just hope that she grows into the role and learns to think for an extra few seconds before speaking.
This guardian article suggests floating ex Tories agree with you. They want Kemi
I just dunno. They are both highly imperfect. I change by mind hourly (unusual for me)
However I do now see that the Tories MUST have a leader able to deal with reform. Farage is not going away
If Farage is willing to check his ego and listen to someone who knows how to campaign in an FPTP system, Reform might be dangerous, but the history of Ukip and Reform so far tells us he isn't so it isn't.
Er what? Farage built up UKIP so successfully he pressured Cameron into holding an in/out vote and then Farage helped to win that vote. He’s probably the most skilful politician active in the UK today (especially now Alex S has died: RIP)
Farage is clever and cunning and good at populism, he is quite capable at turning reform into a party that takes enough votes it fucks the Tories. Indeed he’s already done that and he’s coming for more
As long as he’s around the Tories will have to strike a deal with him. Simple as that
“compulsive usage correlates with a slew of negative mental health effects like loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy, and increased anxiety.”"
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
Fundraising as there are wealthy GOP donors in both states (and as he says he wants a rally in each state so his fans can see him even if not in a swing state) but a bit risky when Obama has just started a marathon campaign stump for Harris in swing states to rally the black vote in particular. In 2016 Hillary also spent too much time at California donor dinners and not enough time in swing states https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Yes, there is definitely a hint of Hillary's mistakes being repeated here. And the fear, justified or not, of being seriously outspent.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
Hillary wasn't a great candidate, she represented a third consecutive term, and she got shafted at the end by the FBI, but she only just missed. So I don't think you can assume everything about her strategy was wrong. If Kamala Harris had the option to be in the position of the Hillary Clinton campaign but with a fresh random roll of the cosmic dice for the last two weeks then she'd take it.
I think Harris's campaign is vastly superior to Clinton's. She is ruthlessly disciplined, none of that deploarables nonsense, she is skilful at avoiding answers, she has somehow made herself look the change candidate despite being VP for 4 years, she has raised incredible sums of money in only 2 months and is looking to spend it effectively with GOTV operation on a scale even the US has not seen before. She is utterly focused on the swing states, she has now done the interviews, done the debate (and won), done the rallies, its really gone like clockwork.
Her latest, again compared with the Hillary collapse which they tried to cover up and cost her dearly, is releasing her medical records and daring Trump to do the same. She may or may not be a good President but she knows her business and learns fast when she does something less than well.
She had no control on this but would have been better if the one and only debate was nearer the election.
Memories are fading already as to how shit Trump was in that debate.
Yes, as a said a couple of weeks ago my impression is that each time there has been a big event, like her nomination or the debate or her interviews, she has taken a step forward but the general drift is towards Trump and that advantage soon fades back to the original position which is both within the margin of error and incredibly close in the key states. Some, perhaps most, of that drift, is because being an incumbent is incredibly tricky after the last few years.
Its worrying. This is still a coin toss and the opportunities for further boosts are quite limited. The best hope is that Trump harms himself but its hard to imagine how much more obnoxious and outrageous he can get.
There is no way this gets decided on November 5th. Given the staggering incompetence of the American counting system it may be a couple of weeks before we know who has won. And that's assuming the courts don't get heavily involved.
If the polls are out 3 pts but the other way this time Harris will have a clear win. That's my hope and (still) my expectation.
Comments
Yes, this is the first time has has announced it in this form; but a few years back he was saying Tesla cars would pay for themselves when used as autonomous taxis. Which again was a reannouncement from a few years earlier.
Yes - that’s the one. They re-wrote Danny’s code. He was a retired NASA engineer and wrote it in Excel and C#, IIRC.
I rewrote it in CUDA (graphics card language from NVIDIA) so it would run billions of simulations. Just confirmed what he had found. Just like about 20 others did - he posted his Excel model on nasaspaceflight.com. There’s a lot of real rocket engineers there - current and building the rockets you see fly.
However in the 6 months prior to the launch those shares rose by about 45%
Though Siena also crucially has Harris ahead in Pennsylvania even if the Trump gains with Latinos see them have Arizona going to Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/upshot/harris-trump-polls-election.html
Progress is being made
I agree with you on the legal minutiae of Rwanda. They got it wrong. But the bigger concept of offshore processing as a deterrent is the only way forward short of hideous violence
Some of us are old enough to remember when there was three months between Shuttle launches, now there’s three rockets going up in two days!
Fact is certain kinds of migrants assimilate better and are a net benefit, and data from Denmark and Netherlands - much more honest than us - shows that some kinds of migrants are a net drain on resources (and bring severe social issues as you say)
We can no longer shy away from awkward facts
I still think that we need heavy penalties (with proper enforcement) on British people for employing people without the right to work to tackle the demand side.
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1RDGlyognOgJL
I’m not sure Elon is too fussed about his share price anyway
He’s one of the richest men in the world, maybe the most powerful non politician in the world - only Zuck rivals him, and Zuck doesn’t have a starlink or SpaceX. He is also changing the world
That Optimus robot is incredible. I still can’t quite believe sci fi is coming to life in our time. Its amazing
Historians will see Musk as a titanic figure. Flawed but titanic
I've said this before, but in the mid-1990s I was mad on the DC-X Clipper VTVL rocket. I'd hear about a potential launch on the Internet, but then I would have to wait days or weeks for any substantial info or video on it. Nowadays we're getting much more info, even (in a limited manner) from the Chinese.
If the Tories are polling around the same level as Labour it doesn’t feel to me like there’ll be much willingness to change the leader mid-Parliament.
Obviously it’s very early days. But the fundamentals look to me relatively strong for the new leader’s position, certainly to start with.
Or do what Poland is doing under the “moderate” Tusk. Suspend asylum entirely
All this is coming. Brace
Hurrah, there are actual Nazis being elected in Europe!
Same people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzITOw51SfU
Hope you've properly oiled that handbrake.
From Porter in the Guardian: " Latest figures show she’s spent $57m with Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to Trump’s $6m, and on Google, owner of YouTube, $31.5m compared with Trump’s $9.3m."
Of course Hillary outspent him too. Didn't help her much.
For a long time the firewall against the Far/Hard right held out, it has now been breached in multiple countries, from Holland to Hungary, Denmark to Austria, and arguably in the USA as well (if you see Trump as hard/far right)
We should be grateful that the "hard right" in Britain comes in the relatively reasonable form of Nigel Farage, who isn't going to start "remigrating" people. Because the alternatives will be a lot nastier than him
But in Britain as elsewhere these issues have to be addressed, by the democrats, before the non-democrats take over
One of the reasons people across Europe feel poorer is because illegal and legal migrants from these third world countries contribute significantly less (or nothing) in monetary terms to the state but use significantly more than working age citizens. Every time we import cheap labour from Africa, Bangladesh etc... they bring with them 3 or 4 kids that need schooling, parents that need healthcare all for one working age person who does a minimum wage job.
I actually think it's time to enforce private schooling and private healthcare requirements for economic migrants to the UK. No more free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
Sadly.
It is alrready happening. Sweden is offering migrants, settled in Sweden, tens of thousands to go "home"
"Sweden To Pay Immigrants Up To $34,000 To Return"
https://www.barrons.com/news/sweden-wants-to-pay-immigrants-up-to-34-000-to-return-govt-0321aafc
It is highly possible this will become common across the West, and it will be a tragic failure by all concerned
That's the entire theme of the Aurora rally.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1844810445036679669
Reform are doing well so there is no help from them for the Tories and the LDs have 11.6K and 6.4K respectively to squeeze and having already won it is so much easier. I would think the same is true for a handful of other seats they are just behind in.
So although there is 1% from the LDs to the Tories in that poll (which is nothing) I would expect with Labour dropping and Reform doing well and ruthless targeting the LDs wouldn't go down by 2 but up by 2 or 3.
Uniform swing is not your friend when dealing with LD targeting. It is much more applicable when dealing with Con/Lab and with bigger swings (eg that wiped out the LDs)
PS it is notable that it is only 2 seats. The LDs did get some big margins, which makes you wonder whether there were more on offer.
https://x.com/blueorigin/status/1845461513223500194
Her latest, again compared with the Hillary collapse which they tried to cover up and cost her dearly, is releasing her medical records and daring Trump to do the same. She may or may not be a good President but she knows her business and learns fast when she does something less than well.
https://www.ft.com/content/bced2138-366b-448f-ab12-3c068199145a
I am still hopeful we can avoid this in the UK. Probably the best result for the country would be a reform type party in power. Very very strict on migration and asylum but never going to do evil stuff like deportation
This shows the Tories have acted sanely in proposing Jenrick and Badenoch. With reform on 20% the Tories cannot possibly win unless they do a deal with Farage. And only Jenrick and Badenoch - deeply flawed as they are - seem prepared to do that and are aware of the necessity
https://www.ft.com/content/43fe6f55-c093-4a03-ae28-0609a6b1b57a
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/13/conservatives-focus-group-kemi-badenoch-robert-jenrick-tory-leadership
I just dunno. They are both highly imperfect. I change by mind hourly (unusual for me)
However I do now see that the Tories MUST have a leader able to deal with reform. Farage is not going away
When we were in the EU the New Zealand doctor and the illiterate Somali would still need to wait the same amount of time for settled status.
What did our membership of the EU have to do with anything?
Badenoch might be a disaster.
That's my view.
Additionally the Kiwi can vote as a Commonwealth citizen in the meantime, while the Somali can not.
Memories are fading already as to how shit Trump was in that debate.
But Badenoch is lightweight, globalist, unpopular with staff and prone to tantrums and gaffes
On the upside, whoever wins will be facing Starmer who is now the most unpopular new prime minister in British history and has no obvious way of turning around these perceptions
Maybe the Tory leader just has to be “OK”
https://news.sky.com/video/share-13232808
law-abiding
high skilled
don't demand specual treatment or changes to the laws
keen to integrate
culturally look like us
Now it's entirely possible for Islamic immigrants to ticn all those boxes. @TSE's parents, for example; and similarly the parents of a friend of mine who came from Pakistan in the 70s. But it's also the case that a disproportionate number of immigrants who don't fit tgis description come from countries like Somalia, Syria and Yemen which happen to be Islamic. I'd certainly have no problem closing the door to immugration from these countries. Sure, the vast majority from these places are decent human beings and many will tick some of the boxes above. But how many murderers, terrorists, low level crooks and west-rejecters are we happy to let in alongside them?
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
18m
“He makes George Wallace look like a run of the mill constitutionalist"
Conservative columnist @SykesCharlie on Trump’s rhetoric at his rallies in recent weeks
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1845473388799652316
It has been crap for decades now.
Its worrying. This is still a coin toss and the opportunities for further boosts are quite limited. The best hope is that Trump harms himself but its hard to imagine how much more obnoxious and outrageous he can get.
There is no way this gets decided on November 5th. Given the staggering incompetence of the American counting system it may be a couple of weeks before we know who has won. And that's assuming the courts don't get heavily involved.
Farage is clever and cunning and good at populism, he is quite capable at turning reform into a party that takes enough votes it fucks the Tories. Indeed he’s already done that and he’s coming for more
As long as he’s around the Tories will have to strike a deal with him. Simple as that
TikTok admits in their own research:
“compulsive usage correlates with a slew of negative mental health effects like loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy, and increased anxiety.”"
https://x.com/PeterHamby/status/1844717913049039266