I see Labour is bleating Gerrymandering in the Guardian article referred to by TSE as their rotten boroughs are for the chop.
What isn't explored in that article is whether the revised seats will be more vulnerable to a UKIP attack, especially if, now the Tory Civil war is over UKIP reposition as a socially conservative version of Old Labour. A sort of Frank Field & Kate Hoey on Steroids party or GB version of the Democratic Unionists.
I would not be so sure the Tory civil war is entirely over, according to the papers yesterday May and Hammond are looking to get sector by sector access to the single market with some controls on migration i.e. not full single market access but not the hard BREXIT IDS and the Tory right and UKIP want either. As well as the boundary review that could also be a reason May avoids an early election to avoid UKIP making potential gains on a complete halt to free movement, withdrawal from the single market ticket
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
So you are saying that Ferry companies profits are wholly dependent on an unlevel playing field with aircraft and Ferry companies profits are more important than national security?
Rail will be just fine. Eurostar already has airport type checks and the new regime would facilitate a long overdue switch from lorries to rail freight on the trans manche route with eurotunnel benefiting from less Ferry competition.
Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...
Reducing or removing a bias is always worth doing. That there are other biases which are unaffected isn't a reason to leave this one in place. And removing a bias isn't the same as introducing one, whatever that prat Winterton says.
I agree, it is the very opposite of gerrymandering. Too bad there isn't a simple, catchy gerund for that. Perhaps we should coin one? De-biasing? Fairifying?
If you define gerrymandering as changing boundaries etc which will advantage one side over another, you could say it meets that criteria. However, the question for me is are the changes still actually fair because they are redressing an existing imbalance favouring the other side? If an imbalance exists how else can one correct it without conferring advantage on the one currently disadvantaged?
If there is no imbalAnce and thus advantage already, changes would be trivial and inconsequential surely?
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. No.....
These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
Face recognition in CCTV software might sort this before long. Basically you would do a match with worldwide airport CCTV records to see where they started their journey and crossreference with paperwork presented when they did start the journey.
Yes nice idea but unfortunately those that end up in Calais do not tend to pass through these types of secure areas but in rafts or across fields in the dead of night. Also it's a big Brother thing as well though passing across London you are captured on hundreds of CCTVs etc.
Deterrence is only achieved when people realise very firm treatment will be applied to illegal activity and to those those that make money from it. They will still come though and they know the EU does not have the will to take such actions.
It's better to resolve the issue at source as Cameron advocated. Once they get on the move it's probably too late.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
So you are saying that Ferry companies profits are wholly dependent on an unlevel playing field with aircraft and Ferry companies profits are more important than national security?
Rail will be just fine. Eurostar already has airport type checks and the new regime would facilitate a long overdue switch from lorries to rail freight on the trans manche route.
Yes, the USP of travelling by ferry or rail is that the ability to board and disembark quickly is far quicker than flying and more than makes up for the slower point to point journey time.
Eurostar only has checks before you board the train, and for good reason: if you did them at both ends then it'd take twice as long to turn trains around and you'd only be able to run half as many.
For me, keeping critical national infrastructure working and cost effective is far more important than worrying about a few illegal migrants. Their presence is an irritant but it's not worth cutting off our nose for.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
So you are saying that Ferry companies profits are wholly dependent on an unlevel playing field with aircraft and Ferry companies profits are more important than national security?
Rail will be just fine. Eurostar already has airport type checks and the new regime would facilitate a long overdue switch from lorries to rail freight on the trans manche route.
Indeed. All good: we will institute airport-type security at all ports, get freight to switch to rail from road, add significantly to the time it takes to get to and from France...and not a Syrian refugee will be allowed on our turf.
My point is not that we can't do these things (although of course we won't), but that we shouldn't be surprised when France takes us at our word when we tell them and the EU to fuck off.
Under FPTP if we're going to review boundaries we should increase to at least 800 MPs for 2 reasons:
-would make size of elected house close to that of unelected Lords. -gives parliament a chance of representing fractured vote and multi-parties
Reducing MPs just helps the big old parties, Tories now, and Labour if they ever get their act together. Parliament will be less representative of the real splits in UK opinion.
So I hope these are voted down again. Is anyone aware of any non-Tory party that isn't likely to vote against? Possibly the DUP? Must be a serious risk of losing the whole lot if so. As was seen the Lords debate in 2012 the Tories are remarkably keen on any constitutional changes that benefit them, and vastly skilled at stopping anything else.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
.
Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.
The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.
I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.
You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.
Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.
As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.
But the checks will ultimately make the ferry/rail service uneconomic due to the additional delays, which will screw us too.
Yes it will as loading a ship with vehicles takes longer than passengers in aircraft. Cargo flown by air is delivered in advance to secure areas. Containers are also done this way for ports and awaiting ship arrivals. Ferries of course are to a point turn up and go for commercial not so much for general public
We either take the delays and cost or ask France to simply honour the rules and remove the small number of people causing the problem. France have no excuse really.
And this was my original point. We have stuck two fingers up at the EU, it's directives and it's treaties. Surely a sign that all such treaties are "in play".
Yet we expect France to adhere to one of them to the letter.
We dont need to just sit passively and hope that France adhere.
We see to it that they are well aware that we will hurt them if they dont. Even if it hurts us a bit too.
In 2010 in the LD manifesto there was a point about reducing the number of MPs to 500. This was part of a wider proposal including STV for the Commons and an elected upper house.
Still a good proposal, even better than AV...
There are three proposals there, each independent of the others. Each has its merits and problems, but they should be considered separately. There is no reason to present them as a package.
No, constitutional reform absolutely has to be a package. If not, it will be defeated in detail - no part makes sense alone.
Ed m's idea of a constitutional convention was one of his good ones.
There should be no "reform" of the Commons at least until such time that numbers in the upper House are reduced to a sensible level. Nor is there a case for spending up to £10 billion on the Palace of Westmnster until numbers are settled. Finally the issue of an arbitrary reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is and should be quite separate from a boundary revision.
Can you please explain how the number of MPs could be reduced from 650 to 600 without a boundary revision?
Remove all Scottish MPs, since they're going Indy soon anyway?
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. No.....
These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
Ports with international departures already have security like airports under the ISPS code. The issue is that ferry ports are a more turn up and go situation so not just people are checked but vehicles , caravans etc.
There is technology that has been implemented. The underside of vehicles can be are scanned and "heat sensor gates" are available to detect body heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.
I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.
Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.
What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.
The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.
I think you need aroun 400-500 for the lords. Otherwise they'd not fill the chamber! And that's the most important thing.
Reselection considerations: generally, a new constituency will have an old constituency plus a chunk, so most members will find that say 70% of the seat is their usual territory. I'd think that most in those circumstances will seek to stay on as Labour candidates rather than seek the probable suicide of standing as independents or a new party. If not reselected, some might think again, but it would then be quite difficult - "I was a strong supporter of Labour and wanted to champion the party until they picked someone else, now I think they're crap".
Owen and his alleged penis joke, following his ISIS thoughts and other incidents, illustrates the perils of an ABC strategy. If you pick someone random whose big selling point is that he's not someone else, problems may emerge. The cnetre-left really needs someone (at this point probably for 2020) who (a) is heavyweight enough to carry conviction and (b) actually has the guts to stand. If they haven't got anyone like that, they should find a different profession.
But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.
Is this less about the individual politicians and more about a crisis in social democracy (as opposed to pure-blood socialism)? Voters seem to have lost faith it as a vehicle for delivering a steady improvement in lives.
''My point is not that we can't do these things (although of course we won't), but that we shouldn't be surprised when France takes us at our word when we tell them and the EU to fuck off.''
I'm never surprised when French bureaucrats do something that's against our interests!
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are tback control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. Norol and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
Ports with international departures already have security like airports under the ISPS code. The issue is that ferry ports are a more turn up and go situation so not just people are checked but vehicles , caravans etc.
There is technology that has been implemented. The underside of vehicles can be are scanned and "heat sensor gates" are available to detect body heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.
I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.
Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.
What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.
The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.
I think you need aroun 400-500 for the lords. Otherwise they'd not fill the chamber! And that's the most important thing.
Okaaaaay...
@ThreeQuidder yes, that would on the whole be my solution as well, but I can foresee a major snag. If you have a House proportionately elected on the same vote as a constituency house, somebody will claim greater democrat legitimacy for the former and cause a constitutional deadlock. Even arrangements for joint sittings wouldn't necessarily overcome this.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are tback control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. Norol and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
Ports with international departures already have security like airports under the ISPS code. The issue is that ferry ports are a more turn up and go situation so not just people are checked but vehicles , caravans etc.
There is technology that has been implemented. The underside of vehicles can be are scanned and "heat sensor gates" are available to detect body heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
The first three are 'domestic' EU matters which only apply to EU members. The last one is a proper international treaty.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are tback control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. Norol and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkele process.
France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
Ports with international departuresdy heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
the French have been noisily upset about the Calais situation for years and are in the early stages of getting ready for elections next year. Brexit has probably had minimal effect on their behaviour on this issue.
Edit - and it would seem according to others that in your haste to make it an eu issue you missed it is not an eu treaty apparently. Time to pivot!
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
Tell that to the poor sods last week who took 4 HOURS to get from Victoria to Horsham last week, because of a signal failure at Balham. The NR employee I was talking to was telling me people were very very angry, especially as its on the curse.d Southern Rail line
''My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.''
You appear to be arguing against a wall of objection that simply does not exist. Personally I was astonished when the French decided to adhere to that treaty. Most Brexiteers never expect the French to behave well where we are concerned.
The French position grows ever weaker, however. I bet many countries are now wondering why they ever voted with these f8ckwits against us so many times.
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are tback control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. Norol and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
We shall see
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
Ports with international departures already have security like airports under the ISPS code. The issue is that ferry ports are a more turn up and go situation so not just people are checked but vehicles , caravans etc.
There is technology that has been implemented. The underside of vehicles can be are scanned and "heat sensor gates" are available to detect body heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
The first three are 'domestic' EU matters which only apply to EU members. The last one is a proper international treaty.
Which La France, being a sovereign nation, can amend or opt out of or nullify.
Rosie Winterton is charged with coming up with the criteria by which Labour MPs will slug it out for the new constituencies. She was given the job by Jeremy Corbyn:
''My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.''
You appear to be arguing against a wall of objection that simply does not exist. Personally I was astonished when the French decided to adhere to that treaty. Most Brexiteers never expect the French to behave well where we are concerned.
The French position grows ever weaker, however. I bet many countries are now wondering why they ever voted with these f8ckwits against us so many times.
True and true. But on the latter point, there is an election, don't forget.
< the French have been noisily upset about the Calais situation for years and are in the early stages of getting ready for elections next year. Brexit has probably had minimal effect on their behaviour on this issue.
Indeed. Had we voted to remain we would have been in a much weaker situation here and would have been expected to be Good Europeans and compromise with PM call me Dave inevitably rolling over.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. No.....
These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
The solution is the Australian one. The Danish are looking at it:
The problem is the prolonged process that occurs when the asylum applicant gets a toe on British soil and the ease of evading removal.
The system is perverse in many ways, not least that it is impossible to legitimately claim asylum without having entered the country, combined with refusal of entry if that is what the object of entry is. Catch 22.
A lot of illegals get in on tourist visas then overstay, but that is a different issue.
Not quite correct. You can go to a countries Embassy anywhere and claim political asylum though technically I agree you are then on that countries soil so to speak. You would have to be legitimate though hence the camps at Calais being full of economic migrants.
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
Oh an "international treaty" is different?
Hmm.
And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
Tell that to the poor sods last week who took 4 HOURS to get from Victoria to Horsham last week, because of a signal failure at Balham. The NR employee I was talking to was telling me people were very very angry, especially as its on the curse.d Southern Rail line
Luckily, Eurostar is (usually) run more competently.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
The base point of Remaitors that the UK is a weak little island that has to be nice to the nearby countries or they will bully us and make us very poor is rather sad.
So, if the Tories can win an overall majority of 12 (ie, over 50% of seats in the Commons) on 37% of the vote under the current system, presumably they will be getting much larger majorities in the future on a similar vote share. That is certainly one way of engaging those voters who feel they have been left behind and ignored, I suppose.
What the boundary review will end up doing is changing the voting system. As things stand, I suspect that only the Tories will go into the next election favouring FPTP. They'll win, of course. But one day they won't. Then everything will change: the voting system, party funding and so on.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
Tell that to the poor sods last week who took 4 HOURS to get from Victoria to Horsham last week, because of a signal failure at Balham. The NR employee I was talking to was telling me people were very very angry, especially as its on the curse.d Southern Rail line
Luckily, Eurostar is (usually) run more competently.
.. they have been recently striking too... about god knows what,...
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
So you are saying that Ferry companies profits are wholly dependent on an unlevel playing field with aircraft and Ferry companies profits are more important than national security?
Rail will be just fine. Eurostar already has airport type checks and the new regime would facilitate a long overdue switch from lorries to rail freight on the trans manche route.
Yes, the USP of travelling by ferry or rail is that the ability to board and disembark quickly is far quicker than flying and more than makes up for the slower point to point journey time.
Eurostar only has checks before you board the train, and for good reason: if you did them at both ends then it'd take twice as long to turn trains around and you'd only be able to run half as many.
For me, keeping critical national infrastructure working and cost effective is far more important than worrying about a few illegal migrants. Their presence is an irritant but it's not worth cutting off our nose for.
I see the point you are making but it wouldn't be a few in the end it would be thousands and then some. This would only increase the problems for our neighbours particularly those on the southern borders of the EU.
"The president of the French region that includes Calais has suggested migrants seeking asylum in the UK be allowed to lodge their claim in France. Xavier Bertrand said 9,000 migrants, many trying to get to the UK, were in a Calais camp known as the Jungle. Mr Bertrand said he wanted a new deal in which migrants hoping to claim asylum in the UK would be able to do so at a "hotspot" in France. Those who failed would be deported directly to their country of origin"
First move.......Anyone in these channel camps now or in future is automatically refused entry. France then has to return them as they should be doing anyway right now.
Refusals on grounds
1) They have already shown they have no respect for our laws by circumventing immigration and by not applying to emigrate legally from their country of origin. 2) They have threatened violence against law abiding citizens of many nationalities (including British) crossing the borders land caused no end of intentional disruption to our freight and services. 3)They have crossed safe countries to get to the French coast and remain in a safe country while failing to claim asylum as the convention requires.
The EU and Merkel created this problem, France chose to allow these people to cross the country and establish themselves at the coat so so it is for them and them alone to resolve. We are not responsible.
Genuine asylum seekers from persecution etc remain protected as they are in and have crossed safe countries so have ample opportunity to secure safety.
Can't we just ask them why they're claiming asylum *from* France? If they were genuine asylum seekers they would have claimed asylum in the first safe place they found.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
The first three are 'domestic' EU matters which only apply to EU members. The last one is a proper international treaty.
Which La France, being a sovereign nation, can amend or opt out of or nullify.
You included it in a list of EU treaties, not France specific treaties.
If France wants to talk business obver a treaty that's their right, but you deliberately alighned it with a response to Brexit when it is both a long standing issue they have consistently been unhappy with for many many years and not a eu treaty to boot. It simply doesn't seem logical to conclude their reaction is a response to Brexit when the alternative explanation that it is a continuation and escalation of existing policy.
If Brexit had an impact I would guess it would be to make even more popular a move, but it woukd have been anyway, who doesn't like their nation standing up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
Oh an "international treaty" is different?
Hmm.
And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?
It will make them less likely to cause trouble because they now know that the British people have the balls to stand up to them, even if it risks hurting us, and that we are now led by a fairly ruthless woman who will take no shit not an aristocratic fop who wants to get on with everybody.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
The base point of Remaitors that the UK is a weak little island that has to be nice to the nearby countries or they will bully us and make us very poor is rather sad.
A picture I saw someone had uploaded to Facebook on the 24th of June summed up their anti-British view rather nicely. On one end of a table, a selection of wines, pastries, cheese, grapes, biscuits etc. On the other a tin of baked beans.
Mr Topping I can see you will view this only one way but as I mentioned previously in regard to asylum applications you do need to differentiate between a EU and international treaty.
Off out the day beckons and thanks for a civilised debate on this issue
''And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?''
I would argue people are listening to us much more than before Brexit. The truth is, Britain is starting to flex its muscle. It may be the right policy, it may well be wrong, but it is what is happening.
As Trevor Kavanagh points out in the Sun today, the eastern Europeans are now waking up to the fact they are waving goodbye to the EU's most potent military power, with Putin breathing down their necks.
For me, the way these countries have behaved to us in recent years has been breathtakingly stupid. But I guess that is what happens when you are taken for granted.
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
Oh an "international treaty" is different?
Hmm.
And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?
It will make them less likely to cause trouble because they now know that the British people have the balls to stand up to them, even if it risks hurting us, and that we are now led by a fairly ruthless woman who will take no shit not an aristocratic fop who wants to get on with everybody.
Bullys become pussycats if you stand up to them.
It sounds as if you think May is a bully. Will she turn pussycat too when she is stood up to?
Mr. Observer, indeed. They might even get a 50-60 seat majority on 36%, like Labour did in 2005.
Yep - and it will be just as outrageous.
Well, until a party in support of PR wins by that amount and follows through on changing it, we're stuck with it. As we've has results of that type before most people accept it, so not likely to be popular clamour for change, and no LDs to force a referendum.
"The president of the French region that includes Calais has suggested migrants seeking asylum in the UK be allowed to lodge their claim in France. Xavier Bertrand said 9,000 migrants, many trying to get to the UK, were in a Calais camp known as the Jungle. Mr Bertrand said he wanted a new deal in which migrants hoping to claim asylum in the UK would be able to do so at a "hotspot" in France. Those who failed would be deported directly to their country of origin"
First move.......Anyone in these channel camps now or in future is automatically refused entry. France then has to return them as they should be doing anyway right now.
Refusals on grounds
1) They have already shown they have no respect for our laws by circumventing immigration and by not applying to emigrate legally from their country of origin. 2) They have threatened violence against law abiding citizens of many nationalities (including British) crossing the borders land caused no end of intentional disruption to our freight and services. 3)They have crossed safe countries to get to the French coast and remain in a safe country while failing to claim asylum as the convention requires.
The EU and Merkel created this problem, France chose to allow these people to cross the country and establish themselves at the coat so so it is for them and them alone to resolve. We are not responsible.
Genuine asylum seekers from persecution etc remain protected as they are in and have crossed safe countries so have ample opportunity to secure safety.
Can't we just ask them why they're claiming asylum *from* France? If they were genuine asylum seekers they would have claimed asylum in the first safe place they found.
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off Maastricht: fuck off Lisbon: fuck off Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
The first three are 'domestic' EU matters which only apply to EU members. The last one is a proper international treaty.
Which La France, being a sovereign nation, can amend or opt out of or nullify.
You included it in a list of EU treaties, not France specific treaties.
If France wants to talk business obver a treaty that's their right, but you deliberately alighned it with a response to Brexit when it is both a long standing issue they have consistently been unhappy with for many many years and not a eu treaty to boot. It simply doesn't seem logical to conclude their reaction is a response to Brexit when the alternative explanation that it is a continuation and escalation of existing policy.
If Brexit had an impact I would guess it would be to make even more popular a move, but it woukd have been anyway, who doesn't like their nation standing up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
We have signalled what we think of the EU members and their treaties. It is perfectly rational to expect that there will be a response given we will soon not be a member of the club.
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
Oh an "international treaty" is different?
Hmm.
And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?
It will make them less likely to cause trouble because they now know that the British people have the balls to stand up to them, even if it risks hurting us, and that we are now led by a fairly ruthless woman who will take no shit not an aristocratic fop who wants to get on with everybody.
Bullys become pussycats if you stand up to them.
It sounds as if you think May is a bully. Will she turn pussycat too when she is stood up to?
Bullys are weak and cowardly not resolute.
If I lived in a Favela and paid an armed guard to guard against raiders at night would sleep far more soundly if it was Theresa May than Cameron or Osborne and would have had a nervous breakdown if it was Hollande or Sarko.
Mr. Observer, and yet, I can't quite recall the leftwing outrage from that election.
Andrew Marr actually said it was a good result, what most people would have wanted - a reduced majority but still a Labour government.
Apparently the 64% of us who voted against Labour actually only pretended that we didn't want a failed second-hand car salesman in power (and I do hope any second hand car salesmen will forgive that slur on their integrity).
''This Leavers vs Remainers business is getting like the Roundheads vs Cavaliers. How long did that take to sort? 100 years?''
Indeed Mr Cole, but its worth pointing out that some remainers do seem to be softening, if reports today are correct. Anna Soubry and Norman Lamb (!) to name a couple.
Mr Topping I can see you will view this only one way but as I mentioned previously in regard to asylum applications you do need to differentiate between a EU and international treaty.
Off out the day beckons and thanks for a civilised debate on this issue
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Errr.. No.....
These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.
Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
A lot of illegals get in on tourist visas then overstay, but that is a different issue.
Not quite correct. You can go to a countries Embassy anywhere and claim political asylum though technically I agree you are then on that countries soil so to speak. You would have to be legitimate though hence the camps at Calais being full of economic migrants.
Virtually no one other than Assange has claimed asylum that way. In practice the only way to claim asylum is either illegal entry or coming in on a visitors visa (and these are not easily granted to citizens of countries from which asylum seekers come).
Asylum treaties created in the post war coldwar era are just not suitable for the modern mobile world.
Mr. Observer, and yet, I can't quite recall the leftwing outrage from that election.
Andrew Marr actually said it was a good result, what most people would have wanted - a reduced majority but still a Labour government.
Apparently the 64% of us who voted against Labour actually only pretended that we didn't want a failed second-hand car salesman in power (and I do hope any second hand car salesmen will forgive that slur on their integrity).
It was an outrageous vote and completely indefensible. No party with a vote share of under 40% should be getting close to a majority in the House of Commons.
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
The first three are 'domestic' EU matters which only apply to EU members. The last one is a proper international treaty.
Whichnullify.
You included it in a list of EU treaties, not France specific treaties.
If France wants to talk business obver a treaty that's their right, but you deliberately alighned it with a response to Brexit when it is both a long standing issue they have consistently been
If Brexit had an impact I would guess it would be to make even more popular a move, but it woukd have been anyway, who doesn't like their nation standing up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
We have signalled what we think of the EU members and their treaties. It is perfectly rational to expect that there will be a response given we will soon not be a member of the club.
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
You seem to have ignored everything I said. They were already unhappy about Calais, this response is entirely in keeping with that, not because of Brexit. Will Brexit make standing up to us even more popular? As I said, yes, but that doesn't mean this dispute is happening because of Brexit, which appears to be your bizarre contention, it was happening anyway, Brexit is merely a part of it now. I've also never said I expected everything we had as a member (although currently we are still members).
How can you think this is happening because of Brexit when Calais has long been an issue? If you were arguing it is worse because of Brexit I'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Personally I would abolish the House of Lords, it is a ridiculous anachronism. Rather than use its chamber as a bingo hall (tempting as that is) I would have an English only Parliament sitting there 2 or 3 days a week with the existing English MPs debating and legislating on England only matters.
I agree that the quid pro quo for this should be the beefing up of the Committee stages of bills allowing the Committees to hear relevant evidence and to take expert advice on the proposals.
Mr. Observer, indeed. They might even get a 50-60 seat majority on 36%, like Labour did in 2005.
Yep - and it will be just as outrageous.
Well, until a party in support of PR wins by that amount and follows through on changing it, we're stuck with it. As we've has results of that type before most people accept it, so not likely to be popular clamour for change, and no LDs to force a referendum.
I think it will begin to change as the Tories move ever rightwards and people like Fox, Boris and Davies are in position to make decisions. The country fluctuates from centre left to centre right, depending on who is in power and for how long. All parties are in it for themselves and once the Tories are out of power whoever takes over will do as much as possible to ensure they never get it back. I am in favour of a constitutional convention and everyone sitting down like grown-ups to sort out a system that then allows us to get on with tackling the many deep-seated issues and challenges that tis country faces. I accept that I am in a minority and that it will never happen.
Before deciding what to do about the House of Lords, we first need to discuss what it is for. Is it to be a chamber with equal stature to the House of Commons or is it to be a revising chamber only?
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
Personally I would abolish the House of Lords, it is a ridiculous anachronism. Rather than use its chamber as a bingo hall (tempting as that is) I would have an English only Parliament sitting there 2 or 3 days a week with the existing English MPs debating and legislating on England only matters.
I agree that the quid pro quo for this should be the beefing up of the Committee stages of bills allowing the Committees to hear relevant evidence and to take expert advice on the proposals.
An English Grand Committee? Wasn't that an old LibDem idea, or at least one Charles Kennedy would float from time to time?
Before deciding what to do about the House of Lords, we first need to discuss what it is for. Is it to be a chamber with equal stature to the House of Commons or is it to be a revising chamber only?
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
Im not so sure. If the appointments are university chancellors, heads of institutions, bishops, senior judges etc that is not the same as the appoinments being the PMs pet cronies
"Asylum treaties created in the post war coldwar era are just not suitable for the modern mobile world."
As ever the sagacious Dr Sox, cuts through to the root of the argument. What we are really dealing with now is quite large numbers of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Treaties and agreements about asylum based on ensuring the ills of WW2 are never repeated are really not the way to deal with the current problem.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Twat
Not easy when someone puts a mirror in front of you and you realise you don't like what you see. As I said a few weeks ago, it might be time for you to step back and have a good long look at why you are so attached to the EU. It goes way beyond economic gain in the same way Richard Nabavi previously supported our membership.
Before deciding what to do about the House of Lords, we first need to discuss what it is for. Is it to be a chamber with equal stature to the House of Commons or is it to be a revising chamber only?
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
I thought its main purposes were to allow the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they are still a national party and that the views of the established Church still have any relevance to our deliberations. Asking for it to be an effective revising chamber as well seems a tad ambitious and not borne out by experience.
This Leavers vs Remainers business is getting like the Roundheads vs Cavaliers. How long did that take to sort? 100 years?
Dr Ydoethur, I’m sure you have an educated opinion!
Isnt it exactly the same question as the Roundheads vs Cavaliers?
Rule by the peoples elected representatives for better or worse versus the divine right of EU commissioners (ie rule by the unelected).
That is one reason people feel so strongly about it.
The parliamentarians were not popular with the people in many ways. Most of them also didn't want to get rid of the King and had to be purged.
I did a very lengthy post I think pre Brexit trying to align the various positions. I think Cameron and co would have been like the Presbyterian interest, not willing to remove the King despite opposing him, eventually removed by the more hardline brexiteers. Question is did may shortcut the years of rule of the rump, in this analogy Tory rule but with infighting, by seizing the Cromwell role and stamping her authority on every corner of these islands?
Clearly this means GOD is right and the end result will be a fudge where we are part in and part out, as in Kings return but power reduced.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.
The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.
I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.
You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.
Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.
As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.
But the checks will ultimately make the ferry/rail service uneconomic due to the additional delays, which will screw us too.
Yes it will as loading a ship with vehicles takes longer than passengers in aircraft. Cargo flown by air is delivered in advance to secure areas. Containers are also done this way for ports and awaiting ship arrivals. Ferries of course are to a point turn up and go for commercial not so much for general public
We either take the delays and cost or ask France to simply honour the rules and remove the small number of people causing the problem. France have no excuse really.
And this was my original point. We have stuck two fingers up at the EU, it's directives and it's treaties. Surely a sign that all such treaties are "in play".
Yet we expect France to adhere to one of them to the letter.
The UK has honoured all its Treaty obligations to other EU member States and will continue to do so.
Before deciding what to do about the House of Lords, we first need to discuss what it is for. Is it to be a chamber with equal stature to the House of Commons or is it to be a revising chamber only?
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
I thought its main purposes were to allow the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they are still a national party and that the views of the established Church still have any relevance to our deliberations. Asking for it to be an effective revising chamber as well seems a tad ambitious and not borne out by experience.
If we are to judge chambers by their effectiveness in what they are supposed to do, we might as well abolish the House of Commons as well.
I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.
I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.
Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.
What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.
The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.
I think you need aroun 400-500 for the lords. Otherwise they'd not fill the chamber! And that's the most important thing.
What mince, get them a phone box and have a handful. Make money out of tourists visiting the lord's, be first time it has been of any benefit.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest.
The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain.
The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Before deciding what to do about the House of Lords, we first need to discuss what it is for. Is it to be a chamber with equal stature to the House of Commons or is it to be a revising chamber only?
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
I thought its main purposes were to allow the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they are still a national party and that the views of the established Church still have any relevance to our deliberations. Asking for it to be an effective revising chamber as well seems a tad ambitious and not borne out by experience.
If we are to judge chambers by their effectiveness in what they are supposed to do, we might as well abolish the House of Commons as well.
Fair point. It will be interesting to see for how many months the House of Commons fails to call the government to explain its complete absence of an expressed economic policy, total ambiguity on Brexit, uncertainty on Heathrow expansion, whether the Northern Powerhouse idea died with Osborne, whether we should build a nuclear power station or not, which decade we are aiming for the introduction of Universal Credit now, whether triangular or curved paperclips should become standard, whether we should have more grammar schools or fewer Academies...
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
ty.
Whichnullify.
You included it in a list of EU treaties, not France specific treaties.
If France wants to talk business obver a treaty that's their right, but you deliberately alighned it with a response to Brexit when it is both a long standing issue they have consistently been
If Brexit had an impact I would guess it would be to make even more popular a move, but it woukd have been anyway, who doesn't like their nation standing up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
We have signalled what we think
You seem to have ignored everything I said. They were already unhappy about Calais, this response is entirely in keeping with that, not because of Brexit. Will Brexit make standing up to us even more popular? As I said, yes, but that doesn't mean this dispute is happening because of Brexit, which appears to be your bizarre contention, it was happening anyway, Brexit is merely a part of it now. I've also never said I expected everything we had as a member (although currently we are still members).
How can you think this is happening because of Brexit when Calais has long been an issue? If you were arguing it is worse because of Brexit I'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
We then left this club and what? Situation no change? Or do you think it possible that it was, especially with an election coming up, a catalyst for action, finally because as you say none of this is new news.
"Asylum treaties created in the post war coldwar era are just not suitable for the modern mobile world."
As ever the sagacious Dr Sox, cuts through to the root of the argument. What we are really dealing with now is quite large numbers of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Treaties and agreements about asylum based on ensuring the ills of WW2 are never repeated are really not the way to deal with the current problem.
Indeed. Inhabitants of the Jungle are quite explicit in their belief that they have the right to live in the country of their choice (the UK) rather than the first safe country they come to.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Twat
Not easy when someone puts a mirror in front of you and you realise you don't like what you see. As I said a few weeks ago, it might be time for you to step back and have a good long look at why you are so attached to the EU. It goes way beyond economic gain in the same way Richard Nabavi previously supported our membership.
I am not going to re-run pre-vote arguments. Nor am I going to make twattish comments on the subject. You seem to prefer to do both.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
We then left this club and what? Situation no change? Or do you think it possible that it was, especially with an election coming up, a catalyst for action, finally because as you say none of this is new news.
' We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm. '
Comments
Rail will be just fine. Eurostar already has airport type checks and the new regime would facilitate a long overdue switch from lorries to rail freight on the trans manche route with eurotunnel benefiting from less Ferry competition.
If there is no imbalAnce and thus advantage already, changes would be trivial and inconsequential surely?
Deterrence is only achieved when people realise very firm treatment will be applied to illegal activity and to those those that make money from it. They will still come though and they know the EU does not have the will to take such actions.
It's better to resolve the issue at source as Cameron advocated. Once they get on the move it's probably too late.
Eurostar only has checks before you board the train, and for good reason: if you did them at both ends then it'd take twice as long to turn trains around and you'd only be able to run half as many.
For me, keeping critical national infrastructure working and cost effective is far more important than worrying about a few illegal migrants. Their presence is an irritant but it's not worth cutting off our nose for.
My point is not that we can't do these things (although of course we won't), but that we shouldn't be surprised when France takes us at our word when we tell them and the EU to fuck off.
-would make size of elected house close to that of unelected Lords.
-gives parliament a chance of representing fractured vote and multi-parties
Reducing MPs just helps the big old parties, Tories now, and Labour if they ever get their act together. Parliament will be less representative of the real splits in UK opinion.
So I hope these are voted down again. Is anyone aware of any non-Tory party that isn't likely to vote against? Possibly the DUP? Must be a serious risk of losing the whole lot if so. As was seen the Lords debate in 2012 the Tories are remarkably keen on any constitutional changes that benefit them, and vastly skilled at stopping anything else.
We see to it that they are well aware that we will hurt them if they dont. Even if it hurts us a bit too.
I understand democracy and the EU don't fit well together, but there we are.
There is technology that has been implemented. The underside of vehicles can be are scanned and "heat sensor gates" are available to detect body heat in containers etc. We need more to keep a steady flow though and boarding / loading to maintain suitable speeds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ship_and_Port_Facility_Security_Code
I'm never surprised when French bureaucrats do something that's against our interests!
We could do all those things. Heat sensor gates, highly-trained bees to seek out illegal immigrants.
Although of course we won't do much about it at all.
My point is that what we can't or shouldn't be is surprised when an EU country takes us at our word when we tell them we don't like their pesky sovereignty-abusing treaties.
Treaty of Rome: fuck off
Maastricht: fuck off
Lisbon: fuck off
Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
@ThreeQuidder yes, that would on the whole be my solution as well, but I can foresee a major snag. If you have a House proportionately elected on the same vote as a constituency house, somebody will claim greater democrat legitimacy for the former and cause a constitutional deadlock. Even arrangements for joint sittings wouldn't necessarily overcome this.
Mr. Topping, the agreement regarding Calais is a bilateral UK-France agreement. Not an EU one.
It's also worth noting the French have not, historically, acted in Britain's interests. The EU didn't stop them banning British beef, did it?
Edit - and it would seem according to others that in your haste to make it an eu issue you missed it is not an eu treaty apparently. Time to pivot!
You appear to be arguing against a wall of objection that simply does not exist. Personally I was astonished when the French decided to adhere to that treaty. Most Brexiteers never expect the French to behave well where we are concerned.
The French position grows ever weaker, however. I bet many countries are now wondering why they ever voted with these f8ckwits against us so many times.
Not really, the one under discussion is an international treaty.
Do also keep in mind France had taken this same stance on this specific problem long long before the referendum so effectively their policy remains the same in or out making the Brexit argument somewhat mute really.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/131494527734/rosie-winterton-mp-to-lead-labours-work-on-the
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/21/chief-whip-calms-reselection-fears-of-labour-mps-who-oppose-jeremy-corbyn
I fear that NickP may struggle to find a winnable seat. And that's before you throw in his support for the Iraq war
You can go to a countries Embassy anywhere and claim political asylum though technically I agree you are then on that countries soil so to speak. You would have to be legitimate though hence the camps at Calais being full of economic migrants.
Hmm.
And that may well be as maybe but do you think our EU vote will make them more or less likely to ignore our wishes?
What the boundary review will end up doing is changing the voting system. As things stand, I suspect that only the Tories will go into the next election favouring FPTP. They'll win, of course. But one day they won't. Then everything will change: the voting system, party funding and so on.
Edited extra bit: I tell a lie. Upon checking, the majority was 66.
If France wants to talk business obver a treaty that's their right, but you deliberately alighned it with a response to Brexit when it is both a long standing issue they have consistently been unhappy with for many many years and not a eu treaty to boot. It simply doesn't seem logical to conclude their reaction is a response to Brexit when the alternative explanation that it is a continuation and escalation of existing policy.
If Brexit had an impact I would guess it would be to make even more popular a move, but it woukd have been anyway, who doesn't like their nation standing up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
Bullys become pussycats if you stand up to them.
Off out the day beckons and thanks for a civilised debate on this issue
I would argue people are listening to us much more than before Brexit. The truth is, Britain is starting to flex its muscle. It may be the right policy, it may well be wrong, but it is what is happening.
As Trevor Kavanagh points out in the Sun today, the eastern Europeans are now waking up to the fact they are waving goodbye to the EU's most potent military power, with Putin breathing down their necks.
For me, the way these countries have behaved to us in recent years has been breathtakingly stupid. But I guess that is what happens when you are taken for granted.
Dr Ydoethur, I’m sure you have an educated opinion!
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
If I lived in a Favela and paid an armed guard to guard against raiders at night would sleep far more soundly if it was Theresa May than Cameron or Osborne and would have had a nervous breakdown if it was Hollande or Sarko.
Apparently the 64% of us who voted against Labour actually only pretended that we didn't want a failed second-hand car salesman in power (and I do hope any second hand car salesmen will forgive that slur on their integrity).
Indeed Mr Cole, but its worth pointing out that some remainers do seem to be softening, if reports today are correct. Anna Soubry and Norman Lamb (!) to name a couple.
That said, I'd dispute the 64% against Labour claim. It was 64% for other parties.
Mr. Richard, quite. I was astounded with Cameron's Little England nonsense, and flabbergasted some here seemed to think it was a clever line.
Asylum treaties created in the post war coldwar era are just not suitable for the modern mobile world.
And the Brexiteers are driving the bus now.
How can you think this is happening because of Brexit when Calais has long been an issue? If you were arguing it is worse because of Brexit I'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
I agree that the quid pro quo for this should be the beefing up of the Committee stages of bills allowing the Committees to hear relevant evidence and to take expert advice on the proposals.
Rule by the peoples elected representatives for better or worse versus the divine right of EU commissioners (ie rule by the unelected).
That is one reason people feel so strongly about it.
A chamber selected by appointment, however, is an abomination whichever we are looking at.
But parliament did agree to hold the referendum...
I never thought of Remainers as anything so formidable, complex and romantic as a traitor.
You see we can all make silly statements.
As ever the sagacious Dr Sox, cuts through to the root of the argument. What we are really dealing with now is quite large numbers of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Treaties and agreements about asylum based on ensuring the ills of WW2 are never repeated are really not the way to deal with the current problem.
The way that many remainers howled over France's burkini ban shows this is also a country of convenience for them, too.
I did a very lengthy post I think pre Brexit trying to align the various positions. I think Cameron and co would have been like the Presbyterian interest, not willing to remove the King despite opposing him, eventually removed by the more hardline brexiteers. Question is did may shortcut the years of rule of the rump, in this analogy Tory rule but with infighting, by seizing the Cromwell role and stamping her authority on every corner of these islands?
Clearly this means GOD is right and the end result will be a fudge where we are part in and part out, as in Kings return but power reduced.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
I don't think anybody on here disputes democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain.
The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
We then left this club and what? Situation no change? Or do you think it possible that it was, especially with an election coming up, a catalyst for action, finally because as you say none of this is new news.
Merkel trashed that concept.