On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
You are assuming that the Rwandans would put any effort into detaining them at all. Or even want to.
Good point.
IIRC (from what a friend living in Denmark has told me - an immigrant going through the Danish immigration process, no less) the Danish proposal was that they would have an asylum processing centre in Rwanda (or elsewhere). This would just be a centre - the asylum seekers would not be detained there. Rwanda would simply allow them entry.
Absolutely, the notion of "detention" or "concentration camps" is the worst kind of Godwin. Actually that's what's happening now unfortunately in the UK people are being detained and its not good.
The proposal is that people would be given somewhere to live in Rwanda and would be free to move about there too. They'd also be free to work there (as far as I understand it) which they're not here today (which is completely stupid - anyone in this country should be free to work). Or they'd be free to leave the country any time of their choosing and move on to somewhere else if they want to do so.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
My extensive experience of sub-Saharan Africa is, you can't move without tripping over the rule of law. Mad for it, they are.
Face it, this is just a slightly different plan from putting them all in a rocket and shooting them into the heart of the sun.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
"Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR?"
I think that covers both.
You sure they're not just winding you up ?
(And why do you get irritated by vegans ?)
Lol, I was just offering a suggestion of what might be said, none of the juniors here have ever asked for it. I'm not sure working in investment management is particularly compatible with XR. These lot would get chased away from any protest, plus they're all pretty well turned out so I don't think the smelly hippie lifestyle is something that appeals to them.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
ISTR that HYUFD was recommending a halt to migration to London and the SE several times over the last day or two. Of course that was in the context of lowering house prices - I'm not sure if he actually wants to do the latter.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Whilst it's not wrong in itself to have a strict immigration policy something about not just turning them back but taking them somewhere else some way away just feels disproportionate to me. I get if you send them back theyll just try again and the French may not play ball, so I have no alternative, but it just doesnt feel right in my gut.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
"possibly their protection in that country" is a long way from being granted asylum in that country. This is a political party floating a (controversial) policy proposal, not something inscribed upon tablets and found in the Ark of the Covenant.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
I would just say that any admission to a care home from hospital that is medically required, but excluding dementia will have the charges paid under the NHS continuing care scheme by the NHS
Only the health component. And you have to fight NHS tooth and nail for that. I've been there.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
That's for simply having a poll within two years, mind: not for the actual vote (some Noes might wanrt the poll now, vide Wendy Alexander, and some Yeses might feel they have a better chance in 3 years, and so on).
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Since last May’s election four polls of vote intentions in a second independence referendum have been published. On average (after leaving aside Don’t Knows), they put Yes on 48% and No on 52%. These figures are exactly the same as those recorded on average by the five polls conducted closest to polling day on May 6th, suggesting that little has happened to public attitudes during the relative quietude of summer. On the other hand, it means that support for Yes is still adrift of the average of 53% recorded in the polls between May and August last year.
This picture suggests that it may well not be in the interests of the independence movement to pursue an early referendum. The chances that any such ballot would produce a majority for independence are certainly lower than they were a year ago, and the possibility of defeat is one that Nicola Sturgeon cannot afford to ignore.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
As with previous pitiful debates on this subject. England doesn't want migrants. Scotland does. So the effort to drown the forrin vermin is being done by England for England.
You sure about that? So if the government picked up every migrant that crosses and ferries them on the Scotland, that would be the best solution?
"We have learnt the wrong lessons from 9/11 The supposed failings of the War on Terror and nation building mean we wouldn’t even intervene in another Rwanda David Aaronovitch" (£)
Some of you asked why Priti Patel should be sacked?
Well a few months ago there was a piece saying Boris Johnson was frustrated by her constant overpromising and persistent under delivering.
Plus she’s annoyed the French with her impossible and impractical demands to solve the migrant problem which would violate French sovereignty.
Anyhoo she hasn’t proposed invading France which shows how incompetent she really is.
Alternatively from her track record perhaps Boris thought he was getting even more incompetence and chaos when he appointed her and is disappointed. Who better to replace her than a man in the midst of a mid life crisis and messy divorce? Should get the incompetence levels right up and give an easy scapegoat for number ten as needed.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
I would just say that any admission to a care home from hospital that is medically required, but excluding dementia will have the charges paid under the NHS continuing care scheme by the NHS
Only the health component. And you have to fight NHS tooth and nail for that. I've been there.
Mask wearing amongst Airedale commuters now down to around 10%.
Was more like 80% two weeks ago.
Very interesting.
I'm really pleased to see people getting back to normal. The fear is subsiding. Government hopefully thinking again about imbecilic vax passes, too, according to the news ce matin.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
Is there polling on that?
Are there lots of Scots whose lives would be materially altered by an influx of migrants in ways which yours would not?
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
That's for simply having a poll within two years, mind: not for the actual vote (some Noes might wanrt the poll now, vide Wendy Alexander, and some Yeses might feel they have a better chance in 3 years, and so on).
No it isn't. You're wrong. The figures against a poll within the two years are even stronger.
"The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK."
"We have learnt the wrong lessons from 9/11 The supposed failings of the War on Terror and nation building mean we wouldn’t even intervene in another Rwanda David Aaronovitch" (£)
Some of you asked why Priti Patel should be sacked?
Well a few months ago there was a piece saying Boris Johnson was frustrated by her constant overpromising and persistent under delivering.
Plus she’s annoyed the French with her impossible and impractical demands to solve the migrant problem which would violate French sovereignty.
Anyhoo she hasn’t proposed invading France which shows how incompetent she really is.
The problem is that your former party has weaponised fear of the forrin as a successful vote-winning strategy.
People have been falsely told by Tory MPs and ministers that asylum seekers must settle in the first safe country they come to. They've been told that the UK is uniquely under siege. They've been told that asylum seekers are the reason for poor service provision.
So of course they are now convinced that only Britain has asylum seekers. That the evil French are aiding them. That we can just "send them back". Just had a sad call on LBC. RAF and Police veteran ranting about how his ill wife's poor care is the fault of these migrants where only Britain is taking them and "we should just tow them back to France".
Tories could have told the truth about this story of human suffering. But didn't. So Patel can never satisfy their hate and assuage their fear because its all a pack of lies.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
I would just say that any admission to a care home from hospital that is medically required, but excluding dementia will have the charges paid under the NHS continuing care scheme by the NHS
Only the health component. And you have to fight NHS tooth and nail for that. I've been there.
"Many have never been told about NHS funding by the health and social care authorities, and yet the NHS has a duty to promote this funding."
In theory: "It covers 100% of care fees for people who need full-time care primarily for health reasons, i.e. they have a Primary Health Need".
"Primarily for health reasons" is the problem in that sentence.
Actually I obtained it for my sister who had terminal cancer and was in the nursing home for 2 years before passing
I agree it was reluctantly granted by Wales NHS
Most people in care homes don't come under the description of being terminally ill - at least not in the same way as a cancer patient whose remaining lifespan can be estimated in months. You did well to get it all paid by the NHS.
If the NHS hadn't paid, the local authority would have stepping in only if the patient had assets below the cap. This would include the home if it wasn't lived in by a spouse, a disabled person or a child of the patient over the age of 60.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
London HAS quite a lot of immigrants. Who were, presumably, in the sample.
Yes of course, but it doesnt follow that immigrants must support migration more than natives. That only holds for recent immigrants.
From an academic study "Are Immigrants in Favour of Immigration? Evidence from England and Wales"
"Our results show that immigrants who have been in the country for five years or more have views on immigration that are similar to those of natives, i.e., they are more likely to oppose further immigration than recent immigrants"
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
"We have learnt the wrong lessons from 9/11 The supposed failings of the War on Terror and nation building mean we wouldn’t even intervene in another Rwanda David Aaronovitch" (£)
As with previous pitiful debates on this subject. England doesn't want migrants. Scotland does. So the effort to drown the forrin vermin is being done by England for England.
You sure about that? So if the government picked up every migrant that crosses and ferries them on the Scotland, that would be the best solution?
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
I'm sure somebody will come along to explain why increasing costs for something that has been free is somehow good for people though
Yes. Let those who want to pay for roaming and investment in 5G infrastructure in Germany etc do so.
I would like my mobile fees to be paying for infrastructure in the UK. There is still no 5G infrastructure where I live, you bemoan the lack of 4G on the Tube - why should our fees we're paying for be getting redirected to pay for infrastructure abroad instead of infrastructure at home?
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
That's for simply having a poll within two years, mind: not for the actual vote (some Noes might wanrt the poll now, vide Wendy Alexander, and some Yeses might feel they have a better chance in 3 years, and so on).
No it isn't. You're wrong. The figures against a poll within the two years are even stronger.
"The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK."
Further to this, everyone knows that Nicola is just going through the motions in proposing a referendum in 2023. Gives The National (otherwise known as "McPravda") something to write about. The Programme for Govt, debated a few days ago at Holyrood, was dull and uninspired, and the FM is into negative territory so far as her personal polling is concerned. Make you wonder what the indy polling would look like if anyone but Boris was PM.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
That's for simply having a poll within two years, mind: not for the actual vote (some Noes might wanrt the poll now, vide Wendy Alexander, and some Yeses might feel they have a better chance in 3 years, and so on).
No it isn't. You're wrong. The figures against a poll within the two years are even stronger.
"The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK."
Actually we're both right, at least within the limits of my quick and dirty mental arithmetic which had given the same figures for the poll within 2 years with DKs removed. I didn't say anything about the actual vote.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
Is there polling on that?
Are there lots of Scots whose lives would be materially altered by an influx of migrants in ways which yours would not?
The polling was the 2021 Holyrood election. The policy I linked to was in the SNP manifesto which saw them re-elected on a record vote tally.
They aren't my party. But people are clear who they voted for.
Ah, that must be the solution, it can't be that the dangerous voyage in a dingy that will likely certainly lead to death or injury is enough of a risk for these people.
I bet a decent proportion in time will turn out to be from Afghanistan, a country we have literally destroyed. Still, "not our problem mate".
This from the country that wrote the book on settling refugees and looking after the less fortunate. What happened to that country?
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
Give it some due consideration and look into why the Social Democrats in Denmark, the United Nations, and others are already doing this or looking into it.
Perhaps the Social Democrats, the sister party of the Labour Party with a red rose for its logo, party of former Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (aka Mrs Stephen Kinnock), is a xenophobic extremist party that has been taken over by racists like Corbyn. But I've not seen any evidence of that, so if its the case I'll give that due consideration too.
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
Has anyone said they are the reason we are in a hole?
The only reason I would support this is to stop the dinghies which are causing people to drown in the Channel. It is a safe, legal and humane solution.
I also advocate for an increase in legal asylum seekers being brought into this country through safe channels. Not dinghies and people smugglers.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
Mr. Pioneers, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest someone willing to illegally cross freezing water to enter a country might also be willing to take a bus or train.
That's the thing about law-abiding people. They follow the rules. And people like people who follow the rules.
It's faintly ironic how you're attacking the English for xenophobia.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
I would just say that any admission to a care home from hospital that is medically required, but excluding dementia will have the charges paid under the NHS continuing care scheme by the NHS
Only the health component. And you have to fight NHS tooth and nail for that. I've been there.
"Many have never been told about NHS funding by the health and social care authorities, and yet the NHS has a duty to promote this funding."
In theory: "It covers 100% of care fees for people who need full-time care primarily for health reasons, i.e. they have a Primary Health Need".
"Primarily for health reasons" is the problem in that sentence.
I've been there, too. And the phrase 'you have to fight NHS tooth and nail for that' doesn't fully describe the difficulties. Social Services fragmentation, while understandable, doesn't make life easier, either.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
This "we" shit is really a bit previous. I lived longer in Scotland than you have yet, and would never have dreamt of doing it.
But I accept that 88% white Glasgow is patently less xenophobic than 45% white London.
I wholly hear you about "this we shit is a bit previous". I've only been here 7 months. But "we" is literally the policy of the Scottish government. To integrate migrants, refugees, asylum seekers etc as New Scots from day 1. https://www.gov.scot/policies/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/new-scots/
I can't speak for my neighbours. But I can say what they voted for. Scotland voted in record numbers for a manifesto where migrants to Scotland should be "welcomed, supported and integrated into our communities from day one." If that wasn't the government policy just voted for I wouldn't be presuming to say what people think.
OK so I'm white and English rather than "they're all young men with beards!!". There is a wee language issue (I'm ok mostly with Scots, much less ok with Doric) but the community here could not have been more welcoming of incomers. And there are various eastern European families and they get the same.
If you don't want to know the scores look away now, but we appear to be heading for another Partnership vs Opposition split over vaccine passports - so the vote will be 70-odd to 57-ish, depending on turnout...
In a weird circular situation where we basically know the final result of the vote before we've seen the detail of what the proposal actually is - but at the same time we know the final result of the vote *because* MSPs still don't have any detail about what the proposal is
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
Refugees have the legal right to request asylum in any country they like.
That is something the UK abides by, why do I feel this is going to be the next thing we try to leave. It's like a dangling carrot, eventually you'll be able to eat it, just jump through these 18 hoops
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
If you apply to come to the UK you have to meet immigration rules that prescribe fairness between applicants.
Unless we deter economic migration across the channel we are letting people queue jump. There should be nothing more abhorrent to an internationalist.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
I'm surprised you didn't quote this part of the article.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
Mr. Pioneers, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest someone willing to illegally cross freezing water to enter a country might also be willing to take a bus or train.
That's the thing about law-abiding people. They follow the rules. And people like people who follow the rules.
It's faintly ironic how you're attacking the English for xenophobia.
What is interesting is if you ask immigrants *why* they want to live in London.
Essentially, it comes down to a combination of existing communities and *feeling* that the rest of the UK* is cold, empty and jobless. Some seem to believe that outside London, it's all a bit Deliverance....
*Scotland seems to have a bad rep. Wales is un-thought of. NI is considered a war-zone full of bigots.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
No surprise, Donaldson needs to stop further DUP leakage to Traditional Unionist Voice.
Unless the Irish Sea Border is removed then I suspect that unfortunately powersharing in the NI executive will be over after the Stormont elections next year unless the UUP becomes the main Unionist party. Although on current polls that is possible.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
I'm surprised you didn't quote this part of the article.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
I didn't quote it because I acknowledged it in my first paragraph.
And I get your compassion of wanting to take more asylum seekers and reduce the numbers dying in the process. But you have to realise that there are many paths to asylum seeking including, sadly, people trying to make it across the channel. There are several (we don't have a number) dying in the process.
That is tragic. But then again several people die of bee stings or mountaineering and I don't see you get all policy-aware referring to the UN etc about these fatalities.
So of course try to reduce the number of fatalities but your solution of exporting all such asylum seekers to Rwanda is a bit extreme given the numbers.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
Scotland population density, 65 per square km. England population density, 426 per square km.
If Scotland wants to take most UK immigrants until that population density is equalised fine by me
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
I'm surprised you didn't quote this part of the article.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
I didn't quote it because I acknowledged it in my first paragraph.
And I get your compassion of wanting to take more asylum seekers and reduce the numbers dying in the process. But you have to realise that there are many paths to asylum seeking including, sadly, people trying to make it across the channel. There are several (we don't have a number) dying in the process.
That is tragic. But then again several people die of bee stings or mountaineering and I don't see you get all policy-aware referring to the UN etc about these fatalities.
So of course try to reduce the number of fatalities but your solution of exporting all such asylum seekers to Rwanda is a bit extreme given the numbers.
Its not that extreme since what will happen (as happened in Australia) is that the people smugglers will find no clients, since none of those "seeking asylum" from France will want to end up in Rwanda. So the dinghies will stop and people won't end up in Rwanda.
It is a deterrence that works - and we can get asylum seekers safely and legally into this nation without the help of deadly dinghies and people smugglers.
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
I'm surprised you didn't quote this part of the article.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
I didn't quote it because I acknowledged it in my first paragraph.
And I get your compassion of wanting to take more asylum seekers and reduce the numbers dying in the process. But you have to realise that there are many paths to asylum seeking including, sadly, people trying to make it across the channel. There are several (we don't have a number) dying in the process.
That is tragic. But then again several people die of bee stings or mountaineering and I don't see you get all policy-aware referring to the UN etc about these fatalities.
So of course try to reduce the number of fatalities but your solution of exporting all such asylum seekers to Rwanda is a bit extreme given the numbers.
Its not that extreme since what will happen (as happened in Australia) is that the people smugglers will find no clients, since none of those "seeking asylum" from France will want to end up in Rwanda. So the dinghies will stop and people won't end up in Rwanda.
It is a deterrence that works - and we can get asylum seekers safely and legally into this nation without the help of deadly dinghies and people smugglers.
Why are you getting so worked up about a few people dying in the Channel. Not zero but not hundreds?
What other causes are you so impassioned about?
Also, as I strayed onto the Daily Mash website, I had to laugh - not you any more, of course, as you are well out of it...
I know, it sounds like hippy nonsense, but treachery can damage your mental health. Improve your well-being by reading The Telegraph in the bath then going fox hunting while listening to stirring military music. You’ll be dehumanising migrants again in no time."
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
No as even fewer Scots, 38% want a referendum in the next 2 years than the 43% who would now vote Yes.
We must continue to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (majority Conservative) remains far from convinced on government reasoning (sic) for vaccine passports:
This morning we published the Government's response to our report Covid-Status Certification
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
I agree completely with every single one of your conditions.
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
As of Jun this year. My BiB. So yes under the proposals asylum would be granted in "the host country [of the processing centre]"
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
I'm surprised you didn't quote this part of the article.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
I didn't quote it because I acknowledged it in my first paragraph.
And I get your compassion of wanting to take more asylum seekers and reduce the numbers dying in the process. But you have to realise that there are many paths to asylum seeking including, sadly, people trying to make it across the channel. There are several (we don't have a number) dying in the process.
That is tragic. But then again several people die of bee stings or mountaineering and I don't see you get all policy-aware referring to the UN etc about these fatalities.
So of course try to reduce the number of fatalities but your solution of exporting all such asylum seekers to Rwanda is a bit extreme given the numbers.
Its not that extreme since what will happen (as happened in Australia) is that the people smugglers will find no clients, since none of those "seeking asylum" from France will want to end up in Rwanda. So the dinghies will stop and people won't end up in Rwanda.
It is a deterrence that works - and we can get asylum seekers safely and legally into this nation without the help of deadly dinghies and people smugglers.
Why are you getting so worked up about a few people dying in the Channel. Not zero but not hundreds?
What other causes are you so impassioned about?
Also, as I strayed onto the Daily Mash website, I had to laugh - not you any more, of course, as you are well out of it...
I'm not that impassioned by it, I just think its a good idea. It wouldn't be a factor when I vote as its not a priority. But its a thing I think is the right thing to do - and I've yet to hear a better solution.
I am impassioned by the fact that we've been betrayed by the Tories on tax which is why I wrote yesterday's header, quit the party and won't vote for the party anymore.
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
I suspect the Danish government is inventing solutions to problems to chase headlines, just as the British government is doing.
The actual arrangement between Rwanda and Denmark is for the latter to provide support to Rwanda in processing its own migrant claims, because unbeknownst to people in Northern Europe, third world countries on the whole have a bigger migration problem they are less well equipped to deal with.
Denmark can pretend this is a solution to Denmark's migrant problem. The UK government can then latch onto a "model" for them.
Today's headline that the government has obtained legal advice on pushing boats out to sea is part of that pattern of pretend solutions to indicate the government is doing something. Presumably Counsel told Patel in no uncertain terms that the proposed action is in severe breach of its obligations under the Law of the Sea. She can then lock it away in a drawer and say, she got the legal advice.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
That's for simply having a poll within two years, mind: not for the actual vote (some Noes might wanrt the poll now, vide Wendy Alexander, and some Yeses might feel they have a better chance in 3 years, and so on).
This is from the poll
The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK.
Among those who voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood election, 20 per cent would vote to remain part of the UK, and 24 per cent do not believe there should be a referendum on independence within the next two years.
Pamela Nash, chief executive of Scotland in Union, said: “This poll confirms that Nicola Sturgeon is out of touch with the people of Scotland.
“A majority of voters oppose her plans for a divisive second referendum within the next two years, and she should listen to what people are telling her.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Man who relies on polls for everything posts polls showing a clear win for No.
"Get the democratically-demanded referendum done and won, kill it off for a generation"
"No. Boris said no and Boris always keeps his promises".
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Terminology matters. There are probably three vague classes of people coming over: asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants. To confuse matters, people may have multiple reasons for coming, e.g. an asylum seeker hoping to become a refugee, but who also knows the UK might offer a much better quality of life over other countries they could try to claim asylum in.
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Seems odd that there’s still no sign of the vaccine passport paper yet, with hours to go until MSPs debate & vote. I know the vote’s a formality but surely the Gov should at least pretend they care about MSPs finding out what the public/businesses/experts think before they vote.
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
And for those of us not watching BBC News?
OK they are talking about the Met and Kafka-esque justice, wrt to Cressida Dick covering up Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan. Then it descends into a row about the BBC.
ETA BBC News channel on iplayer from about 9.49 am today.
Comments
The proposal is that people would be given somewhere to live in Rwanda and would be free to move about there too. They'd also be free to work there (as far as I understand it) which they're not here today (which is completely stupid - anyone in this country should be free to work). Or they'd be free to leave the country any time of their choosing and move on to somewhere else if they want to do so.
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
Face it, this is just a slightly different plan from putting them all in a rocket and shooting them into the heart of the sun.
Well a few months ago there was a piece saying Boris Johnson was frustrated by her constant overpromising and persistent under delivering.
Plus she’s annoyed the French with her impossible and impractical demands to solve the migrant problem which would violate French sovereignty.
Anyhoo she hasn’t proposed invading France which shows how incompetent she really is.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
Looks as if the Scots are rejecting independence on the evidence of this poll
https://caretobedifferent.co.uk/nhs-continuing-healthcare/
"Many have never been told about NHS funding by the health and social care authorities, and yet the NHS has a duty to promote this funding."
In theory: "It covers 100% of care fees for people who need full-time care primarily for health reasons, i.e. they have a Primary Health Need".
"Primarily for health reasons" is the problem in that sentence.
"But the networks won't put their roaming charges back after we leave"
"But not all the networks will put their roaming charges back after we leave"
There is no competition, as per before the networks take their customers for a ride and operate as a cartel
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The supposed failings of the War on Terror and nation building mean we wouldn’t even intervene in another Rwanda
David Aaronovitch" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinas-curb-on-video-games-will-prove-futile-tcmhjqbfw
Its worth noting that Rwanda in particular already do this for the UN and have done for years, as well as other countries, and they do not use camps or guards to the best of my knowledge. So it should be possible to dispassionately examine how that is done in the real world already for the UN today which is what the Danes are examining without it being a major issue.
It would be good to take the heat out of this issue and discuss it sensibly without Godwins flying around. The one thing we should all be able to agree on surely is that stopping people drowning in the Channel should be a priority?
I agree it was reluctantly granted by Wales NHS
Are there lots of Scots whose lives would be materially altered by an influx of migrants in ways which yours would not?
"The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK."
Details here: https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,poll-majority-of-scots-opposed-to-second-independence-referendum-in-2023
People have been falsely told by Tory MPs and ministers that asylum seekers must settle in the first safe country they come to. They've been told that the UK is uniquely under siege. They've been told that asylum seekers are the reason for poor service provision.
So of course they are now convinced that only Britain has asylum seekers. That the evil French are aiding them. That we can just "send them back". Just had a sad call on LBC. RAF and Police veteran ranting about how his ill wife's poor care is the fault of these migrants where only Britain is taking them and "we should just tow them back to France".
Tories could have told the truth about this story of human suffering. But didn't. So Patel can never satisfy their hate and assuage their fear because its all a pack of lies.
If the NHS hadn't paid, the local authority would have stepping in only if the patient had assets below the cap. This would include the home if it wasn't lived in by a spouse, a disabled person or a child of the patient over the age of 60.
From an academic study "Are Immigrants in Favour of Immigration?
Evidence from England and Wales"
"Our results show that immigrants who have been in the country
for five years or more have views on immigration that are similar to those of
natives, i.e., they are more likely to oppose further immigration than recent
immigrants"
https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/219267/B7061557-3C84-4886-902F-F6591B0DA137.pdf
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
But I accept that 88% white Glasgow is patently less xenophobic than 45% white London.
I would like my mobile fees to be paying for infrastructure in the UK. There is still no 5G infrastructure where I live, you bemoan the lack of 4G on the Tube - why should our fees we're paying for be getting redirected to pay for infrastructure abroad instead of infrastructure at home?
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
Anyway, the point is: IndyRef is a dead parrot.
They aren't my party. But people are clear who they voted for.
Ah, that must be the solution, it can't be that the dangerous voyage in a dingy that will likely certainly lead to death or injury is enough of a risk for these people.
I bet a decent proportion in time will turn out to be from Afghanistan, a country we have literally destroyed. Still, "not our problem mate".
This from the country that wrote the book on settling refugees and looking after the less fortunate. What happened to that country?
Perhaps the Social Democrats, the sister party of the Labour Party with a red rose for its logo, party of former Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (aka Mrs Stephen Kinnock), is a xenophobic extremist party that has been taken over by racists like Corbyn. But I've not seen any evidence of that, so if its the case I'll give that due consideration too.
The only reason I would support this is to stop the dinghies which are causing people to drown in the Channel. It is a safe, legal and humane solution.
I also advocate for an increase in legal asylum seekers being brought into this country through safe channels. Not dinghies and people smugglers.
"No country has as yet agreed to collaborate with Denmark on the project, but the government says it is in talks with five to 10 countries, without identifying them.
"A system of transferring asylum seekers to a third country must, of course, be established within the framework of international conventions," Migration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told AFP.
"That will be a prerequisite for an agreement. In addition, we need to have a monitoring mechanism in place so that we can continuously ensure that everything is going as planned."
He had previously said the countries may not necessarily be democracies "in the way we see things."
Danish media have mentioned Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia as possibilities.
Denmark is meanwhile known to be in talks with Rwanda -- which also discussed similar plans with Israel in the past."
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210603-fortress-denmark-wants-to-send-its-asylum-seekers-outside-europe
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
That's the thing about law-abiding people. They follow the rules. And people like people who follow the rules.
It's faintly ironic how you're attacking the English for xenophobia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUs5X9glCc
Social Services fragmentation, while understandable, doesn't make life easier, either.
I can't speak for my neighbours. But I can say what they voted for. Scotland voted in record numbers for a manifesto where migrants to Scotland should be "welcomed, supported and integrated into our communities from day one." If that wasn't the government policy just voted for I wouldn't be presuming to say what people think.
OK so I'm white and English rather than "they're all young men with beards!!". There is a wee language issue (I'm ok mostly with Scots, much less ok with Doric) but the community here could not have been more welcoming of incomers. And there are various eastern European families and they get the same.
If you don't want to know the scores look away now, but we appear to be heading for another Partnership vs Opposition split over vaccine passports - so the vote will be 70-odd to 57-ish, depending on turnout...
In a weird circular situation where we basically know the final result of the vote before we've seen the detail of what the proposal actually is - but at the same time we know the final result of the vote *because* MSPs still don't have any detail about what the proposal is
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1435884921541865472?s=20
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
That is something the UK abides by, why do I feel this is going to be the next thing we try to leave. It's like a dangling carrot, eventually you'll be able to eat it, just jump through these 18 hoops
Unless we deter economic migration across the channel we are letting people queue jump. There should be nothing more abhorrent to an internationalist.
But even "those whose asylum claims are successful after being exported will not be allowed to come 'back' to Denmark to enjoy refugee status. They will simply get refugee status in the as yet unnamed host country," University of Copenhagen migration expert Martin Lemberg-Pedersen told AFP.
If people aren't economic migrants and are seeking legitimate asylum then Rwanda can offer that. They're used for that purpose by the United Nations and have been for years.
Those who want to come here for economic reasons, there's paths to do so.
And I would personally want us to take more asylum seekers. But there should be safe and legal routes to do so - not paying people smugglers to get across on dinghies fleeing Macron's France with many dying in the process.
Essentially, it comes down to a combination of existing communities and *feeling* that the rest of the UK* is cold, empty and jobless. Some seem to believe that outside London, it's all a bit Deliverance....
*Scotland seems to have a bad rep. Wales is un-thought of. NI is considered a war-zone full of bigots.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/09/northern-ireland-dup-may-walk-out-of-stormont-power-sharing-over-brexit-protocol
Take the much heralded "Scottish State Owned Energy Company":
@ScottishSun editorial today on the Scottish Government ditching Nicola Sturgeon's 2017 pledge for a state-owned energy company.
Nice for the private consultants paid hundreds of thousands of pounds — but zero help for Scots promised cheap energy bills by the First Minister.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1435881554111340546?s=20
Ok, I'll just be over here waiting for things to calm down.
https://www.eetimes.com/5g-takes-to-the-stars/
Unless the Irish Sea Border is removed then I suspect that unfortunately powersharing in the NI executive will be over after the Stormont elections next year unless the UUP becomes the main Unionist party. Although on current polls that is possible.
And I get your compassion of wanting to take more asylum seekers and reduce the numbers dying in the process. But you have to realise that there are many paths to asylum seeking including, sadly, people trying to make it across the channel. There are several (we don't have a number) dying in the process.
That is tragic. But then again several people die of bee stings or mountaineering and I don't see you get all policy-aware referring to the UN etc about these fatalities.
So of course try to reduce the number of fatalities but your solution of exporting all such asylum seekers to Rwanda is a bit extreme given the numbers.
Today's @Survation @ScotlandinUnion poll is far from the first to find that voters are opposed to an early #indyref2. See, for example,
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1435878242846707723?s=20
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1435881755827965952?s=20
If Scotland wants to take most UK immigrants until that population density is equalised fine by me
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
It is a deterrence that works - and we can get asylum seekers safely and legally into this nation without the help of deadly dinghies and people smugglers.
What other causes are you so impassioned about?
Also, as I strayed onto the Daily Mash website, I had to laugh - not you any more, of course, as you are well out of it...
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/the-tory-voters-guide-to-being-betrayed-yet-again-20210908211863
Edit: LOL from the DM piece:
"Practice self-care
I know, it sounds like hippy nonsense, but treachery can damage your mental health. Improve your well-being by reading The Telegraph in the bath then going fox hunting while listening to stirring military music. You’ll be dehumanising migrants again in no time."
We must continue to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
This morning we published the Government's response to our report Covid-Status Certification
Read our Report here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6264/documents/69158/default/
Read the Government Response here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7176/documents/75707/default/
https://twitter.com/CommonsPACAC/status/1435871300023685121?s=20
I am impassioned by the fact that we've been betrayed by the Tories on tax which is why I wrote yesterday's header, quit the party and won't vote for the party anymore.
The actual arrangement between Rwanda and Denmark is for the latter to provide support to Rwanda in processing its own migrant claims, because unbeknownst to people in Northern Europe, third world countries on the whole have a bigger migration problem they are less well equipped to deal with.
Denmark can pretend this is a solution to Denmark's migrant problem. The UK government can then latch onto a "model" for them.
Details including text of the agreement here: https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/32041/denmark-seeks-to-externalize-asylum-obligations-to-rwanda
Today's headline that the government has obtained legal advice on pushing boats out to sea is part of that pattern of pretend solutions to indicate the government is doing something. Presumably Counsel told Patel in no uncertain terms that the proposed action is in severe breach of its obligations under the Law of the Sea. She can then lock it away in a drawer and say, she got the legal advice.
The Survation poll also found that 57 per cent of people in Scotland would vote to “remain” part of the United Kingdom in a referendum – with only 43 per cent in favour of “leaving” the UK.
Among those who voted SNP in the 2021 Holyrood election, 20 per cent would vote to remain part of the UK, and 24 per cent do not believe there should be a referendum on independence within the next two years.
Pamela Nash, chief executive of Scotland in Union, said: “This poll confirms that Nicola Sturgeon is out of touch with the people of Scotland.
“A majority of voters oppose her plans for a divisive second referendum within the next two years, and she should listen to what people are telling her.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
"Get the democratically-demanded referendum done and won, kill it off for a generation"
"No. Boris said no and Boris always keeps his promises".
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Seems odd that there’s still no sign of the vaccine passport paper yet, with hours to go until MSPs debate & vote. I know the vote’s a formality but surely the Gov should at least pretend they care about MSPs finding out what the public/businesses/experts think before they vote.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1435885807420821510?s=20
ETA BBC News channel on iplayer from about 9.49 am today.
I've heard of earthquake lights before, I've never seen them filmed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-58489038