I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Depends what you mean by softies. All self organised (I spend more time planning it than doing it), Mainly along greenways. Stay in B&B or small hotels. Consume huge quantities of booze and food. Cycle about 50 miles a day.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
Was great fun and they take your bags to each hotel.
Well done for self-organising I presume your panniers are the size of small cars?
No I just smell.
Got a Loire trip planned as well. Train to Orleans down Loire then back up thru Normandy. Was hoping to do this year but probably Spring now. Cycling from Waterloo to St Pancras is the most difficult bit, although the Paris bit is fun as well.
Turns out people dislike illegal immigration more than legal immigration.
Almost as if being law-abiding is an attractive quality.
People didn’t seem to think law abiding immigration was very attractive during the EU years. In fact it’s not controversial to suggest that it was the main driver behind us no longer being members of the EU.
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.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
Well of course, but do you have any way to ensure we take eg women and children etc that desperately need asylum?
Or simply whoever manages to pay people smugglers, primarily young men have a free for all and that's it?
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.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
That is true, though sometimes people do imply a free for all, probably unintentionally, and so hurt their case (eg talking about people looking for opportunity and wouldn't we do the same in that position, which implies it's wrong to say no to anyone).
I think Corbyn Labour did vote through the free for all at conference once.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
Complainants about "economic migrants" often think the third world is a slightly exotic version of the first world and what these guys want is bigger AMOLED tellies, rather than not starving to death.
Seeking a better life also covers that, I suppose. In such a turbulent, troubled world we are very lucky to be here, is my biggest feeling. Free, prosperous, tranquil. You wouldn't spin the wheel again, is what I'm saying.
Mr. Pulpstar, I don't accept that. The non-contributory benefits system and fact that even if you commit vile crimes people will argue against deportation are bigger factors.
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
Plus its utter madness to house people in the UK and then tell them they're not allowed to work. That means either they're compelled to rely upon the state without contributing, or they work illegally.
Anyone allowed in the country should be allowed to work while their case is heard.
They are allowed to work once asylum has been granted.
The root cause, is that cases take too long to come to the tribunal because the people need to be identified and have no documents. Their lawyers then convince them to keep appealing every decision that goes against them.
Forbidding them from working prior to asylum gets granted simply means they're hooked on state welfare until then instead of being productive members of society.
Unless you're going to deport someone immediately, if they're going to remain they may as well be allowed to work while remaining.
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
Turns out people dislike illegal immigration more than legal immigration.
Almost as if being law-abiding is an attractive quality.
People didn’t seem to think law abiding immigration was very attractive during the EU years. In fact it’s not controversial to suggest that it was the main driver behind us no longer being members of the EU.
Theres a very funny clip from awhile back of a Trump backer making the legal/illegal point but then looking stunned when told its legal to claim asylum, and hoping that changes.
Which is not to say everyone claiming to like legal immigration is using that as cover, they aren't, but it happens.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
Is that how it works? I thought the first and deputy first ministers had to be a nationalist and a unionist, so the Alliance cannot take it up.
Reserving places and power for specific groups is a very short term option.
I also thought this to be the case.
Perhaps the Alliance claim, through neutrality, to be half unionist and half nationalist and therefore take both positions?
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
It would not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% there will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory UK government until a generation has elapsed since 2014
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
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
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? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
An issue being "put to bed" normally means it is something we can all sleep easily about because all the issues are sorted. They are not. Brexit is not quite as bad a Horlicks as many of us thought it might be, but it will continue to be a balls-up, particularly while The Clown is still being cheered on by his fanbois. I believe it will take another 20 or 30 years before it is a forgotten issue.
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
It would not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% there will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory UK government until a generation has elapsed since 2014
Yes yes, but we can still track the support levels. Theres no GE scheduled til 2024 but we still do opinion polling.
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'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
That's exactly right imo.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and racism and the damn Scots.
Agreed. On the proposed policy of using a third country, I dont see any problem with starting a small trial scheme and seeing if it works and is scalable. I doubt it will be any sort of panacea and probably is not workable at all, but if it is, then so be it. If we can't find anyone willing to do this even as a trial, then the idea can be put to bed.
Yes, sometimes things that sound "off" can work. Need to look at the detail. I'm giving an instinctive reaction only.
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
It would not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% there will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory UK government until a generation has elapsed since 2014
So you say.
But if Johnson becomes confident he can win SindyRef2 anytime between now and the GE, he calls Nippy's bluff and bites her hand off.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
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.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
I have no problem at all with putting illegal migrants on the first flight home back to where they came from.
Isn't that already what we do when asylum claims are denied and their status is determined to be illegal?
Yes, and I think it's the asylum rules both domestically and internationally that need to be revised - they are too broad.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
100% completely agreed (except I did often say that about Cameron).
And from the moment anyone arrives they should be offered support to get into work and to be productive members of society, not ostracised outsiders who have no choice but to work illegally or rely upon the state.
Worth noting Blair could've had interim controls when new countries acceded to the EU and decided against it. And we could've moved to either a contributory or residency (X years) basis for welfare but didn't.
Reform is very disliked by politicians, who seem to prefer just throwing money at stuff.
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
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? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
An issue being "put to bed" normally means it is something we can all sleep easily about because all the issues are sorted. They are not. Brexit is not quite as bad a Horlicks as many of us thought it might be, but it will continue to be a balls-up, particularly while The Clown is still being cheered on by his fanbois. I believe it will take another 20 or 30 years before it is a forgotten issue.
At which time Rejoin will sweep the country as Remain did in 1975.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
Well put. We can be both selfish and altruistic on this.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
Sorry old chap, but I often find myself defending you because I think you are a fundamentally decent person, but this post must be one of the ignorant posts you have posted.
I am part Irish and I spent a fair bit of time in NI during the troubles and yet I don't pretend to fully understand all the complexities, but I do understand it is still a fragile peace. Johnson's back of a fag packet "solution" is the worst example of his incompetence. I very much hope that my worst fears are not realised.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
Sorry old chap, but I often find myself defending you because I think you are a fundamentally decent person, but this post must be one of the ignorant posts you have posted.
I am part Irish and I spent a fair bit of time in NI during the troubles and yet I don't pretend to fully understand all the complexities, but I do understand it is still a fragile peace. Johnson's back of a fag packet "solution" is the worst example of his incompetence. I very much hope that my worst fears are not realised.
Mr. Pulpstar, I don't accept that. The non-contributory benefits system and fact that even if you commit vile crimes people will argue against deportation are bigger factors.
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
Plus its utter madness to house people in the UK and then tell them they're not allowed to work. That means either they're compelled to rely upon the state without contributing, or they work illegally.
Anyone allowed in the country should be allowed to work while their case is heard.
They are allowed to work once asylum has been granted.
The root cause, is that cases take too long to come to the tribunal because the people need to be identified and have no documents. Their lawyers then convince them to keep appealing every decision that goes against them.
And a lot of people have no documents because they have intentionally lost them as the truth doesn't match the story they are given.
However, a lot of real asylum seekers will also have lost their documents so you can't just go - no documentation - automatic decline.
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.
The Scots are dead lucky to have acquired such a forthright new spokesman.
PB has always been a generous supplier of those happy to speak on our behalf. At least RP has put his doup on the line, if necessary ready to face a face-painted, graip wielding mob baying for English blood.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
Complainants about "economic migrants" often think the third world is a slightly exotic version of the first world and what these guys want is bigger AMOLED tellies, rather than not starving to death.
Seeking a better life also covers that, I suppose. In such a turbulent, troubled world we are very lucky to be here, is my biggest feeling. Free, prosperous, tranquil. You wouldn't spin the wheel again, is what I'm saying.
Indeed, and you have to be pretty desperate, whether that is motivated by persecution or economic betterment, to put your family at serious risk of harm to achieve your objective
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
It would not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% there will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory UK government until a generation has elapsed since 2014
So you say.
But if Johnson becomes confident he can win SindyRef2 anytime between now and the GE, he calls Nippy's bluff and bites her hand off.
He won't be, the Opinium poll this morning shows it neck and neck.
He will therefore continue to refuse a legal indyref2 as long as he is UK PM and there is sod all Nippy can do about it
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
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? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
An issue being "put to bed" normally means it is something we can all sleep easily about because all the issues are sorted. They are not. Brexit is not quite as bad a Horlicks as many of us thought it might be, but it will continue to be a balls-up, particularly while The Clown is still being cheered on by his fanbois. I believe it will take another 20 or 30 years before it is a forgotten issue.
I dop want to see the effects of the October introduction of customs procedures inwards (a key element of taking back control, indeed).
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
Sorry old chap, but I often find myself defending you because I think you are a fundamentally decent person, but this post must be one of the ignorant posts you have posted.
I am part Irish and I spent a fair bit of time in NI during the troubles and yet I don't pretend to fully understand all the complexities, but I do understand it is still a fragile peace. Johnson's back of a fag packet "solution" is the worst example of his incompetence. I very much hope that my worst fears are not realised.
Government by wizard-wheeze and getting a belly-laugh from the punters by hilariously sticking one up an opponent may be all the rage in England. It is nonetheless a very dangerous route to take in Northern Ireland. I hope Johnson sees sense and desists.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland.
If the price of that ends up being reimposing direct rule from London on NI then so be it
This piece reads like it was cribbed a bit too literally from the Haberdashers' press release, but I think it broadly captures the essence of what happened. They discovered that their poster boy, Robert Aske, had been a naughty boy and made a fair bit of money out of that nasty slavery business. Awkward when a good chunk of your pupils are descendants of Caribbean slaves whose unpaid servitude helped to swell Mr Aske's coffers. They have done a reasonably good job of facing up to things, treading a middle ground through the minefield. I have an interest to declare: the statue of Mr Aske stands in my kids' school playground. Personally I would have rather seen the statue tipped into the Ravensbourne, but I can live with their "retain and explain" compromise as I believe they are genuine in the "explain" part. Parents and pupils will certainly hold them to it.
Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Greens from "others" can be added to the 51%.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
It would not matter if the SNP and Greens got 100% there will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory UK government until a generation has elapsed since 2014
So you say.
But if Johnson becomes confident he can win SindyRef2 anytime between now and the GE, he calls Nippy's bluff and bites her hand off.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
I thought Mr Johnson wanted that border? He certainly signed up to it and he is the one more directly responsible for NI.
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
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? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
An issue being "put to bed" normally means it is something we can all sleep easily about because all the issues are sorted. They are not. Brexit is not quite as bad a Horlicks as many of us thought it might be, but it will continue to be a balls-up, particularly while The Clown is still being cheered on by his fanbois. I believe it will take another 20 or 30 years before it is a forgotten issue.
At which time Rejoin will sweep the country as Remain did in 1975.
I am not so sure. First of all the remaining 27 are unlikely to want us, and secondly there will have been such divergence by then that re-joining would be more pain than the divorce. In spite of the fact that it would amuse me in my dotage (assuming I live that long) to see the few remaining Col Blimps in paroxysms of rage, I don't think I would be encouraging or voting for re-join.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland.
If the price of that ends up being reimposing direct rule from London on NI then so be it
Doesnt matter who is to blame now, it is what it is and the UK PM is a big part of dealing with that.
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'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
That's exactly right imo.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and blacks and the damn Scots.
During the Blair government (IIRC) there was a proposal to distribute asylum seekers, rather than just trying to house them all in London. Which was already very expensive for housing costs.
IIRC a Human Rights group took this to court (or threatened to) on the grounds that it infringed the rights of the asylum seekers to be sent to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
I remember thinking that that was a bit sharp towards our brethren in Scotland....
Very! And Scotland should sue right back since they are up for more than they get.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
One way we can do that is make it easy for folk who have been accepted to fully contribute to their new society. That means proper funding for language courses, and a much less bureaucratic and expensive way of transferring their skills and qualifications into UK equivalents. I've worked with radiologists, computer scientists and astrophysicists, along with many wih less impreessive, but no less needed skills, unable to work for more than minimum wage because their overseas credentials aren't recognised. And there is no financial help to enable them to get them. Neither grants nor loans. And they can't afford it privately on minimum wages. Nor do they have the time as they need to work to live. Which is nuts, frankly. An Iranian electrician, for example, once accepted, needs to be viewed as a potential UK electrician. And helped to become so with a government backed loan. Not as a trolley collector.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
Nowhere.
That's the entire point of the GFA! That its a non-binary and fluid special case.
Saying where do you place the border, is like saying where do you place the border for citizenship. Are NI citizens going to be citizens of Ireland, or the UK? The answer of course is both, or either.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....
Excellent... doing his bit for the environment....
I’m amazed that many more people are not making that point. Getting everyone back in offices and commuting full time, will be a serious negative to the COP26 pledges.
If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.
The Prole FPT '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.'
No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.
Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem
Who is "they" in this instance? Existing homeowners obviously don't want to concrete over the SE for any number of reasons. I think if you offered those who are paying £1k a month to rent a small flat the opportunity to pay ~£150k for a 3 bed semi, providing they don't mind concreting over some of the greenbelt, they will mostly bite your hands off. As I said in my original post, the magic tipping point where this leads to a change of policy will arrive when a little more than half of residents are renting.
And yes, enough new housing would solve the problem of it being too expensive. Imagine I could snap my fingers and create 10 million houses in the SE, then auction them off at the rate of 100,000 a day, no reserve. By the end of week two, I suspect they would be fetching less than the building cost. Especially if it was known that I could snap my fingers and do it again once I'd sold them all, so there was no incentive to buy them as rental investments.
Don't get me wrong, there might be practical issues with my just plonking millions more houses down overnight, and it would create a whole raft of other issues, but it would indisputably reduce house prices to a fraction of what they are today.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
They're allowed to if they want to and they can place a border between themselves and the UK, dividing Ireland from Northern Ireland, if that's what they really want.
But if they do that, that breaks the GFA apparently.
Their choice. We should just say we're not in the EU, we're not following EU rules, and we're not imposing a border and stare them down daring them to impose one.
If they won't, that just goes to show that no border is necessary. So the question then is how do you handle a non-border, that's easier if we all compromise.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
This piece reads like it was cribbed a bit too literally from the Haberdashers' press release, but I think it broadly captures the essence of what happened. They discovered that their poster boy, Robert Aske, had been a naughty boy and made a fair bit of money out of that nasty slavery business. Awkward when a good chunk of your pupils are descendants of Caribbean slaves whose unpaid servitude helped to swell Mr Aske's coffers. They have done a reasonably good job of facing up to things, treading a middle ground through the minefield. I have an interest to declare: the statue of Mr Aske stands in my kids' school playground. Personally I would have rather seen the statue tipped into the Ravensbourne, but I can live with their "retain and explain" compromise as I believe they are genuine in the "explain" part. Parents and pupils will certainly hold them to it.
I think there’s a lot to be said for people and institutions in this situation acting in good faith (and therefore persuading others that’s the case). From what I’ve read that wasn’t always evident with the Colston statue. I believe there’s a similar toing-and-froing with a plaque for the Dundas monument in Edinburgh with his descendants unhappy with the wording not being euphemistic enough. Bit difficult to pull that statue down unless one were to get all IRA about it, mind.
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.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
That is true, though sometimes people do imply a free for all, probably unintentionally, and so hurt their case (eg talking about people looking for opportunity and wouldn't we do the same in that position, which implies it's wrong to say no to anyone).
Yes, I know what you mean. However I do think it's ok to criticize the government in an area - any area - without being able to offer a full and detailed solution yourself to the problem being discussed. That's too high a bar.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.
But if you allow them in, but not others, then you're counting not paying people smuggler's as a black mark.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?
This piece reads like it was cribbed a bit too literally from the Haberdashers' press release, but I think it broadly captures the essence of what happened. They discovered that their poster boy, Robert Aske, had been a naughty boy and made a fair bit of money out of that nasty slavery business. Awkward when a good chunk of your pupils are descendants of Caribbean slaves whose unpaid servitude helped to swell Mr Aske's coffers. They have done a reasonably good job of facing up to things, treading a middle ground through the minefield. I have an interest to declare: the statue of Mr Aske stands in my kids' school playground. Personally I would have rather seen the statue tipped into the Ravensbourne, but I can live with their "retain and explain" compromise as I believe they are genuine in the "explain" part. Parents and pupils will certainly hold them to it.
Interesting read. I do think we need to make a distinction between people who invested in companies linked to slavery and people who owned/founded/ran those companies (yes, I know the distinction between owned and invested is not a clear one - let's look at whether he had any input into the running of the company). Otherwise, where do you stop - do you condemn people who invested in funds who invested in slaving companies? Do you condemn people who made commercial loans to slaving companies? What about anyone who made it big importing sugar or using imported sugar in a successful company (were there successful confectionery companies at that time?) if the sugar came from slave plantations?
Given Aske's role in establishing the schools, it seems appropriate to keep reference to him* (be it a statue, or whatever). Explaining where he got his money is also good.
*within reason, of course - I'm not suggesting that VW should have a statue of Hitler at their HQ.
The Prole FPT '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.'
No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.
Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem
Who is "they" in this instance? Existing homeowners obviously don't want to concrete over the SE for any number of reasons. I think if you offered those who are paying £1k a month to rent a small flat the opportunity to pay ~£150k for a 3 bed semi, providing they don't mind concreting over some of the greenbelt, they will mostly bite your hands off. As I said in my original post, the magic tipping point where this leads to a change of policy will arrive when a little more than half of residents are renting.
And yes, enough new housing would solve the problem of it being too expensive. Imagine I could snap my fingers and create 10 million houses in the SE, then auction them off at the rate of 100,000 a day, no reserve. By the end of week two, I suspect they would be fetching less than the building cost. Especially if it was known that I could snap my fingers and do it again once I'd sold them all, so there was no incentive to buy them as rental investments.
Don't get me wrong, there might be practical issues with my just plonking millions more houses down overnight, and it would create a whole raft of other issues, but it would indisputably reduce house prices to a fraction of what they are today.
The existing residents of the SE, see the LD win in Chesham and Amersham for instance over too much building on the greenbelt. Nor do those moving there from London to buy, they don't want to live in a concrete jungle.
Unless every new home is limited to locals who are first time buyers who have lived in the area for 7 years or more, foreign property investment in London is banned reducing the numbers of Londoners forced into the Home Counties to buy and immigration is severely restricted reducing demand, new homes alone will not make much difference to affordability in the SE
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.
I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.
If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.
If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
It’s probably better having UK and RoI negotiate the border, and tell the EU to butt out because they don’t understand the sensitivities around NI.
The answer, to which you allude, is to deal with actual smuggling as and when it arises, ignoring the borders between GB and NI, and between NI and RoI.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.
Are they victims if they knowingly pay for doing something that is known to be illegal?
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
They're allowed to if they want to and they can place a border between themselves and the UK, dividing Ireland from Northern Ireland, if that's what they really want.
But if they do that, that breaks the GFA apparently.
Their choice. We should just say we're not in the EU, we're not following EU rules, and we're not imposing a border and stare them down daring them to impose one.
If they won't, that just goes to show that no border is necessary. So the question then is how do you handle a non-border, that's easier if we all compromise.
You and HYUFD are busy "liking" each other's posts today, which is really cute. Nonethess, HYUFD, in the interests of GFA fairness isn't putting a border in the Irish Sea or on the land between North and South. That being so, and both sides are, as you are saying, able to hold their ground, where, without imaginary friction-free technology (as proposed by HYUFD) are you going to put the border in this "have your cake and eat it" world of @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD ?
This piece reads like it was cribbed a bit too literally from the Haberdashers' press release, but I think it broadly captures the essence of what happened. They discovered that their poster boy, Robert Aske, had been a naughty boy and made a fair bit of money out of that nasty slavery business. Awkward when a good chunk of your pupils are descendants of Caribbean slaves whose unpaid servitude helped to swell Mr Aske's coffers. They have done a reasonably good job of facing up to things, treading a middle ground through the minefield. I have an interest to declare: the statue of Mr Aske stands in my kids' school playground. Personally I would have rather seen the statue tipped into the Ravensbourne, but I can live with their "retain and explain" compromise as I believe they are genuine in the "explain" part. Parents and pupils will certainly hold them to it.
Interesting read. I do think we need to make a distinction between people who invested in companies linked to slavery and people who owned/founded/ran those companies (yes, I know the distinction between owned and invested is not a clear one - let's look at whether he had any input into the running of the company). Otherwise, where do you stop - do you condemn people who invested in funds who invested in slaving companies? Do you condemn people who made commercial loans to slaving companies? What about anyone who made it big importing sugar or using imported sugar in a successful company (were there successful confectionery companies at that time?) if the sugar came from slave plantations?
Given Aske's role in establishing the schools, it seems appropriate to keep reference to him* (be it a statue, or whatever). Explaining where he got his money is also good.
*within reason, of course - I'm not suggesting that VW should have a statue of Hitler at their HQ.
According to wikipedia, he was vaguely related to "Pilgrimage of Grace" Robert Aske.....
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
They're allowed to if they want to and they can place a border between themselves and the UK, dividing Ireland from Northern Ireland, if that's what they really want.
But if they do that, that breaks the GFA apparently.
Their choice. We should just say we're not in the EU, we're not following EU rules, and we're not imposing a border and stare them down daring them to impose one.
If they won't, that just goes to show that no border is necessary. So the question then is how do you handle a non-border, that's easier if we all compromise.
You and HYUFD are busy "liking" each other's posts today, which is really cute. Nonethess, HYUFD, in the interests of GFA fairness isn't putting a border in the Irish Sea or on the land between North and South. That being so, and both sides are, as you are saying, able to hold their ground, where, without imaginary friction-free technology (as proposed by HYUFD) are you going to put the border in this "have your cake and eat it" world of @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD ?
I've already given you my answer: Nowhere.
Make it a crime to smuggle and punish people who do and get caught. But other than that, no border. Rely upon people doing the right thing and punish criminals who don't.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
Nowhere.
That's the entire point of the GFA! That its a non-binary and fluid special case.
Saying where do you place the border, is like saying where do you place the border for citizenship. Are NI citizens going to be citizens of Ireland, or the UK? The answer of course is both, or either.
I am trying very hard to not allow the Irish mist descend here Philip and say something vaguely offensive like "how is it possible for someone to have so many opinions on so many things whilst simultaneous clearly have expertise on nothing?"
Oh dear, I seem to have said it. Oh well, might as well go further, "STFU on Northern Ireland Phil, you have zero understanding"
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4) Conservative 21% (-4) Labour 17% (-3) Lib Dems 5% (+1) Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
It is perfectly rational from a self interested view to vote SNP while not supporting independence. Such a vote can be seen as vote for the status quo: your own Scottish megaphone voice even though your population is the same as Yorkshire, lots of English money, lots of free stuff that England doesn't have, your own parliament + one in Westminster, someone else to blame for everything you don't like, and the promise of Ref2 in a future everyone knows either won't come or won't succeed.
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?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
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.
The Scots are dead lucky to have acquired such a forthright new spokesman.
PB has always been a generous supplier of those happy to speak on our behalf. At least RP has put his doup on the line, if necessary ready to face a face-painted, graip wielding mob baying for English blood.
I emigrated to Scotland with the intention to settle here. If it was a foreign state I'd look to take citizenship.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.
I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.
If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.
If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.
That's liberal democracy, not hatred.
Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
Can I claim my asylum at any one of 208 agreed border crossings?
Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....
Excellent... doing his bit for the environment....
I’m amazed that many more people are not making that point. Getting everyone back in offices and commuting full time, will be a serious negative to the COP26 pledges.
If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.
In addition, it opens up new options for commuting and changes the value proposition of owning a car. My work practices haven't actually changed that much: 2-3 days in office pre-pandemic, looks like 2 post-pandemic, but we've sold my car and I'm now cycling. I can do that twice a week (4 hours total commute versus probably 3 hours by car, but I gain 4 hours of good exercise - have cut down on running a bit, probably net time neutral or better). Plus cost savings in only having one car. Other people might make similar assessments on public transport...
But I don't think I'd be up for 10 hours per week (full time in office) cycle commuting, versus 7.5 by car (and 150 miles of cycling)
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
Nowhere.
That's the entire point of the GFA! That its a non-binary and fluid special case.
Saying where do you place the border, is like saying where do you place the border for citizenship. Are NI citizens going to be citizens of Ireland, or the UK? The answer of course is both, or either.
I am trying very hard to not allow the Irish mist descend here Philip and say something vaguely offensive like "how is it possible for someone to have so many opinions on so many things whilst simultaneous clearly have expertise on nothing?"
Oh dear, I seem to have said it. Oh well, might as well go further, "STFU on Northern Ireland Phil, you have zero understanding"
I understand that the principle underpinning the GFA was setting aside dogmatism and demand for purity and compromising instead.
I want the same principle put in place now that respect all communities. That NI is recognised by both the EU and the UK as being a special case requiring sensitive and special treatment with no border acceptable between either Britain and NI, no between the EU and NI.
If that means the "integrity" of the EU, or the "integrity" of the UK is compromised then so be it. I'm willing to respect the nationalists in NI and have the UK pay the price that stuff or people may get into the UK from the Republic that shouldn't, that's the price that needs paying to keep peace in Northern Ireland. The EU can and should do the same, or they're not respecting the unionists in NI.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
One way we can do that is make it easy for folk who have been accepted to fully contribute to their new society. That means proper funding for language courses, and a much less bureaucratic and expensive way of transferring their skills and qualifications into UK equivalents. I've worked with radiologists, computer scientists and astrophysicists, along with many wih less impreessive, but no less needed skills, unable to work for more than minimum wage because their overseas credentials aren't recognised. And there is no financial help to enable them to get them. Neither grants nor loans. And they can't afford it privately on minimum wages. Nor do they have the time as they need to work to live. Which is nuts, frankly. An Iranian electrician, for example, once accepted, needs to be viewed as a potential UK electrician. And helped to become so with a government backed loan. Not as a trolley collector.
Yep agree with all of this. We should be adopting the same system as they have in Norway where prospective settlers, whether they are refugees or just those moving from one country to another on a permanent basis, are made to undertake 200 hours of compulsory lessons in Norwegian language and culture (political and social norms, history etc). Only after they have completed the course do they get permanent right to residence. In the meantime they can work etc but they are effectively on probation.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
Can I claim my asylum at any one of 208 agreed border crossings?
Allahu akbar.
If it was up to me? Yes 100% absolutely!
We have a Common Travel Area with the Republic. Once people are in the Republic then as far as I'm concerned for all intents and purposes they're already in the UK too as a result. Its too late to prevent them from entering the UK at that point - and vice versa. That's the point behind compromise.
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.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
That reminds me that I finally watched the Tory Boy the Movie documentary last night weekend aka In Search of Sir Stuart Bell, a self-made film of a Northern working class convert to the Conservatives campaigning for the Middlesbrough Constituency in the 2010 Election.
Interesting stuff about disillusionment with the party in power, and how Cameron opened it up.
Now on Amazon Prime.
SB would be able to flatter the French - they gave him the Legion D'Honneur after he spent much of his time in Paris, not his constituency.
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?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
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.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
Well of course, but do you have any way to ensure we take eg women and children etc that desperately need asylum?
Or simply whoever manages to pay people smugglers, primarily young men have a free for all and that's it?
I'm not going to be able to totally solve this one, no. I think we should (i) take more than we do, and (ii) so should other rich countries and (iii) co-operation between countries is required. That about cleans me out.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?
Yes.
Not sure that Priti Patel will agree. If we should have an open door and unchecked migration then the good burghers of Daily Mail land may have an aneurysm. I mean, think what that means for the boats in the channel! Never mind dragging them back to France or sinking them, we'd just say "come in".
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Absolutely 100% agreed.
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.
I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.
If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.
If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.
That's liberal democracy, not hatred.
Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.
What prejudice?
We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.
Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
Just let go. Boris has failed you over Brexit. Just as he failed you over National Insurance.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?
Yes.
Not sure that Priti Patel will agree. If we should have an open door and unchecked migration then the good burghers of Daily Mail land may have an aneurysm. I mean, think what that means for the boats in the channel! Never mind dragging them back to France or sinking them, we'd just say "come in".
My opinion is my own and not Patel's. Far from the first time, won't be the last I disagree with Patel.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
Be very careful of those stampeding unicorns.
No unicorns necessary. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
Be very careful of those stampeding unicorns.
No unicorns necessary. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.
What about South to North asylum seeking unicorns?
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?
Yes.
Not sure that Priti Patel will agree. If we should have an open door and unchecked migration then the good burghers of Daily Mail land may have an aneurysm. I mean, think what that means for the boats in the channel! Never mind dragging them back to France or sinking them, we'd just say "come in".
My opinion is my own and not Patel's. Far from the first time, won't be the last I disagree with Patel.
I'll happily credit you with that! Its a fascinating perspective from someone so demanding of a hard Brexit that we forget about stopping freedom of movement.
Which only really highlights that there was no single Leave position which explains why we are still stuck in all this years on.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
...and all ******* hell breaks loose.
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland
OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?
There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it
Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.
Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
Be very careful of those stampeding unicorns.
No unicorns necessary. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.
What about asylum seeking unicorns?
How many times do I need to answer this?
An open border is an open border. Anyone from Ireland should be able to enter the UK, no border, no checks. A Common Travel Area. If an asylum seeker has made it into Eire they're already in the CTA.
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Cameron had the right answer to this one - and I don't say that very often about him.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
One way we can do that is make it easy for folk who have been accepted to fully contribute to their new society. That means proper funding for language courses, and a much less bureaucratic and expensive way of transferring their skills and qualifications into UK equivalents. I've worked with radiologists, computer scientists and astrophysicists, along with many wih less impreessive, but no less needed skills, unable to work for more than minimum wage because their overseas credentials aren't recognised. And there is no financial help to enable them to get them. Neither grants nor loans. And they can't afford it privately on minimum wages. Nor do they have the time as they need to work to live. Which is nuts, frankly. An Iranian electrician, for example, once accepted, needs to be viewed as a potential UK electrician. And helped to become so with a government backed loan. Not as a trolley collector.
Yep agree with all of this. We should be adopting the same system as they have in Norway where prospective settlers, whether they are refugees or just those moving from one country to another on a permanent basis, are made to undertake 200 hours of compulsory lessons in Norwegian language and culture (political and social norms, history etc). Only after they have completed the course do they get permanent right to residence. In the meantime they can work etc but they are effectively on probation.
I often think of the radiologist when NHS waiting lists are raised. His English wasn't great though he was learning fast. But he had run a mobile X-ray van on the frontline during the Iran-Iraq War. Probably no-one in the UK had seen more blast and trauma fractures. Nor improvised to get folk treated under more trying circumstances. I helped get him a job in a frozen pizza factory...
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.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.
But if you allow them in, but not others, then you're counting not paying people smuggler's as a black mark.
Unfair spin. As I assess each application, I tick no box for whether or not they were a victim of people smugglers.
Comments
Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
·
The SNP have increased their lead in Scotland.
Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):
SNP 51% (+4)
Conservative 21% (-4)
Labour 17% (-3)
Lib Dems 5% (+1)
Other 6% (+4)
51/49 pro independence
Got a Loire trip planned as well. Train to Orleans down Loire then back up thru Normandy. Was hoping to do this year but probably Spring now. Cycling from Waterloo to St Pancras is the most difficult bit, although the Paris bit is fun as well.
Or simply whoever manages to pay people smugglers, primarily young men have a free for all and that's it?
Unless you're going to deport someone immediately, if they're going to remain they may as well be allowed to work while remaining.
However this is not the homogeneous world of HYUFD. Not all SNP and Green voters may be Indepenence supporters and to a very much lesser extent vice-versa.
The election result would then be for a redundant parliament
Which is not to say everyone claiming to like legal immigration is using that as cover, they aren't, but it happens.
Perhaps the Alliance claim, through neutrality, to be half unionist and half nationalist and therefore take both positions?
Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.
But if Johnson becomes confident he can win SindyRef2 anytime between now and the GE, he calls Nippy's bluff and bites her hand off.
You are proactive and go out to the refugee camps actively seeking out those in most need and bring them directly to the UK to be given asylum. That way you are picking those most in need of help rather than those most able to make a long and arduous journey who, ironically, are probably the ones who have the least need of asylum or help. In the case of political refugees we make a point of being far more proactive inside the countries from which political refugees are going to come and make it easier for them to seek asylum through our embassy or consular system.
We need to accept as a country that we have both a duty and also a selfish need to accept immigrants and refugees and then create a system that works both to our advantage and theirs. Currently we have a system that fails to work and is at the disadvantage of both sides of the deal.
And from the moment anyone arrives they should be offered support to get into work and to be productive members of society, not ostracised outsiders who have no choice but to work illegally or rely upon the state.
Worth noting Blair could've had interim controls when new countries acceded to the EU and decided against it. And we could've moved to either a contributory or residency (X years) basis for welfare but didn't.
Reform is very disliked by politicians, who seem to prefer just throwing money at stuff.
I am part Irish and I spent a fair bit of time in NI during the troubles and yet I don't pretend to fully understand all the complexities, but I do understand it is still a fragile peace. Johnson's back of a fag packet "solution" is the worst example of his incompetence. I very much hope that my worst fears are not realised.
However, a lot of real asylum seekers will also have lost their documents so you can't just go - no documentation - automatic decline.
He will therefore continue to refuse a legal indyref2 as long as he is UK PM and there is sod all Nippy can do about it
And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.
The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.
There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.
The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland.
If the price of that ends up being reimposing direct rule from London on NI then so be it
This piece reads like it was cribbed a bit too literally from the Haberdashers' press release, but I think it broadly captures the essence of what happened. They discovered that their poster boy, Robert Aske, had been a naughty boy and made a fair bit of money out of that nasty slavery business. Awkward when a good chunk of your pupils are descendants of Caribbean slaves whose unpaid servitude helped to swell Mr Aske's coffers.
They have done a reasonably good job of facing up to things, treading a middle ground through the minefield. I have an interest to declare: the statue of Mr Aske stands in my kids' school playground. Personally I would have rather seen the statue tipped into the Ravensbourne, but I can live with their "retain and explain" compromise as I believe they are genuine in the "explain" part. Parents and pupils will certainly hold them to it.
I've worked with radiologists, computer scientists and astrophysicists, along with many wih less impreessive, but no less needed skills, unable to work for more than minimum wage because their overseas credentials aren't recognised.
And there is no financial help to enable them to get them. Neither grants nor loans. And they can't afford it privately on minimum wages. Nor do they have the time as they need to work to live.
Which is nuts, frankly. An Iranian electrician, for example, once accepted, needs to be viewed as a potential UK electrician. And helped to become so with a government backed loan. Not as a trolley collector.
That's the entire point of the GFA! That its a non-binary and fluid special case.
Saying where do you place the border, is like saying where do you place the border for citizenship. Are NI citizens going to be citizens of Ireland, or the UK? The answer of course is both, or either.
If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?
If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.
As I said in my original post, the magic tipping point where this leads to a change of policy will arrive when a little more than half of residents are renting.
And yes, enough new housing would solve the problem of it being too expensive. Imagine I could snap my fingers and create 10 million houses in the SE, then auction them off at the rate of 100,000 a day, no reserve. By the end of week two, I suspect they would be fetching less than the building cost. Especially if it was known that I could snap my fingers and do it again once I'd sold them all, so there was no incentive to buy them as rental investments.
Don't get me wrong, there might be practical issues with my just plonking millions more houses down overnight, and it would create a whole raft of other issues, but it would indisputably reduce house prices to a fraction of what they are today.
But if they do that, that breaks the GFA apparently.
Their choice. We should just say we're not in the EU, we're not following EU rules, and we're not imposing a border and stare them down daring them to impose one.
If they won't, that just goes to show that no border is necessary. So the question then is how do you handle a non-border, that's easier if we all compromise.
In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.
I believe there’s a similar toing-and-froing with a plaque for the Dundas monument in Edinburgh with his descendants unhappy with the wording not being euphemistic enough. Bit difficult to pull that statue down unless one were to get all IRA about it, mind.
Given Aske's role in establishing the schools, it seems appropriate to keep reference to him* (be it a statue, or whatever). Explaining where he got his money is also good.
*within reason, of course - I'm not suggesting that VW should have a statue of Hitler at their HQ.
Unless every new home is limited to locals who are first time buyers who have lived in the area for 7 years or more, foreign property investment in London is banned reducing the numbers of Londoners forced into the Home Counties to buy and immigration is severely restricted reducing demand, new homes alone will not make much difference to affordability in the SE
If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.
If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.
That's liberal democracy, not hatred.
The answer, to which you allude, is to deal with actual smuggling as and when it arises, ignoring the borders between GB and NI, and between NI and RoI.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1435915407215534083
Make it a crime to smuggle and punish people who do and get caught. But other than that, no border. Rely upon people doing the right thing and punish criminals who don't.
By 44% to 33%, Scottish voters think the news SNP/Green pact will be “good for Scotland”.
Oh dear, I seem to have said it. Oh well, might as well go further, "STFU on Northern Ireland Phil, you have zero understanding"
As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.
Allahu akbar.
But I don't think I'd be up for 10 hours per week (full time in office) cycle commuting, versus 7.5 by car (and 150 miles of cycling)
I want the same principle put in place now that respect all communities. That NI is recognised by both the EU and the UK as being a special case requiring sensitive and special treatment with no border acceptable between either Britain and NI, no between the EU and NI.
If that means the "integrity" of the EU, or the "integrity" of the UK is compromised then so be it. I'm willing to respect the nationalists in NI and have the UK pay the price that stuff or people may get into the UK from the Republic that shouldn't, that's the price that needs paying to keep peace in Northern Ireland. The EU can and should do the same, or they're not respecting the unionists in NI.
There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.
We have a Common Travel Area with the Republic. Once people are in the Republic then as far as I'm concerned for all intents and purposes they're already in the UK too as a result. Its too late to prevent them from entering the UK at that point - and vice versa. That's the point behind compromise.
Interesting stuff about disillusionment with the party in power, and how Cameron opened it up.
Now on Amazon Prime.
SB would be able to flatter the French - they gave him the Legion D'Honneur after he spent much of his time in Paris, not his constituency.
As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -
"You smell!!"
"You smell worse!"
etc etc...
It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.
We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.
Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?
Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.
Weekly
Tests ↑ 1,903,243 (32.9%)
Cases ↑ 36,196 (15.3%)
It's an encouraging straw in the wind I think, but could be a red herring. Let's see...
Which only really highlights that there was no single Leave position which explains why we are still stuck in all this years on.
An open border is an open border. Anyone from Ireland should be able to enter the UK, no border, no checks. A Common Travel Area. If an asylum seeker has made it into Eire they're already in the CTA.
But he had run a mobile X-ray van on the frontline during the Iran-Iraq War. Probably no-one in the UK had seen more blast and trauma fractures. Nor improvised to get folk treated under more trying circumstances.
I helped get him a job in a frozen pizza factory...