The Yorkshire Party for 3rd place in Wakefield? – politicalbetting.com

Gardenwalker said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.

I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire

Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.

I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire

Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.

For me, Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Cheshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire. And I could have made a stab at Derbyshire through semi-familoarity and Nottinghamshire with the Robin Hood thing. And Rutland because of Ruddles beer. A bit of knowledge of county cricket helps.

OldKingCole said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

We held back the glacial advance along the Cromer Holt ridge and then mourned the sacrifice of the forgotten patron saint of England. We gave the nation its first PM and its greatest admiral.
All to be placed 38th in a flag parade.
Enough. Forth, Wuffingas and reclaim our lands from these lesser men.

Oi! Saint Edmund came from the Stour Valley; nowhere near Norfolk

rottenborough said:

Anne Applebaum
@anneapplebaum

Navalny has disappeared


To be clear: His lawyer went to see him at his penal colony, and was told there was "no such convict". No information was given about where he might be now.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Not true.

"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."

"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics

Hang on:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.

That said, your point is in general correct.

If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.

See:

Leon said:

OOOOOOOH

*getting overexcited in Armenia*

@Cookie’s First Law of Regional Flags also applies in France!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_regions_of_France

Most plausible regional flag as actual national flag?

Corsica

then

Bretagne

Then

“Occitanie”

I rest Cookie’s case, m’Lud

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Not true.

"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."

"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics

Hang on:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.

That said, your point is in general correct.

If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.

See:

Yes there is a lag and in 2021 both acceptances and applications were up which suggested that the 30% level (for acceptances) was about right. As you have kindly confirmed.

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

I have an uncle and cousin in Canada, and also an uncle and two cousins in Australia, including their families, all living there.

Do I have a right to just turn up uninvited and claim citizenship?

Leon said:

OOOOOOOH

*getting overexcited in Armenia*

@Cookie’s First Law of Regional Flags also applies in France!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_regions_of_France

Most plausible regional flag as actual national flag?

Corsica

then

Bretagne

Then

“Occitanie”

I rest Cookie’s case, m’Lud

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I think Sturgeon's challenge will be keeping her coalition together (inside the SNP) whilst sounding coherent about what may happen post-independence.

The *only* sane option for iScotland would be membership of the EU. Who have made statements that they would be interested in fast-tracking membership as they did for Finland and I assume they will now do for Ukraine.

Doing so would necessitate a shadow period where newly iScotland isn't yet a member but is brought under the EU umbrella with regards to things like backing up the currency. And it sounds like the EU are up for that.

The challenge is that I'm not clear everyone in the SNP is up for that!

Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Not true.

"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."

"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics

Hang on:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.

That said, your point is in general correct.

If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.

See:

The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.

In the Netherlands, 98% of people from North Africa and the Middle East are processed inside 10 weeks.

Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?

Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.

I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire

Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.

For me, Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Cheshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire. And I could have made a stab at Derbyshire through semi-familoarity and Nottinghamshire with the Robin Hood thing. And Rutland because of Ruddles beer. A bit of knowledge of county cricket helps.

There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...

Edit - apparently 1983

Gardenwalker said:

Most of the answers to British problems are to “go Swiss”.

They have a skilled workforce, high productivity, a modest wealth tax, good infrastructure (including an excellent rail service), and a high degree of local devolution across four sprechenraums.

OK the food is bland and overpriced, and the cities rather forgettable, but we don’t need to take everything.

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Wiltshire has a bustard in the middle of the flag. Happily been successfully reintroduced in recent years. Green stripes are the grassy downland and white the chalk underneath much of the county.

Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.

Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.

That wasn't a problem for the SNP.

The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.

So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.

Oh do fuck off

The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible

The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts

It’s beyond ridiculous

After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs

The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Wiltshire has a bustard in the middle of the flag. Happily been successfully reintroduced in recent years. Green stripes are the grassy downland and white the chalk underneath much of the county.

Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.

Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.

Ooh, a real treat - like the sea eagles in Scotland, a real improvement to life.

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Not true.

"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."

"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics

Hang on:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.

That said, your point is in general correct.

If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.

See:

The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.

In the Netherlands, 98% of people from North Africa and the Middle East are processed inside 10 weeks.

Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?

Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?

So... I was looking at asylum processing times by country, and the good news is that the UK is not worst. That "record" goes to the United States where the wait for an individual hearing "is now 1,751 days, some 58 months or close to five years.".*

The more efficient your processing, the less you are a magnet to economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.

* That's just the wait for your first hearing. Totally bonkers.

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Wiltshire has a bustard in the middle of the flag. Happily been successfully reintroduced in recent years. Green stripes are the grassy downland and white the chalk underneath much of the county.

Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.

IanB2 said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Wiltshire has a bustard in the middle of the flag. Happily been successfully reintroduced in recent years. Green stripes are the grassy downland and white the chalk underneath much of the county.

Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.

Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.

Ooh, a real treat - like the sea eagles in Scotland, a real improvement to life.

We have sea eagles here - twice I have seen them circling above the town, a majestic sight - but (presumably) local farmers keep poisoning them so the reintroduction is proving problematic.

Leon said:

I have maybe encountered the WORST flag ever. The flag of the French Antarctic Territory (Kerguelen, etc)





They’ve literally just stuck a few initials in a corner, in a phenomenally ugly way. Beat that, PB!

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.

Next.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I think Sturgeon's challenge will be keeping her coalition together (inside the SNP) whilst sounding coherent about what may happen post-independence.

The *only* sane option for iScotland would be membership of the EU. Who have made statements that they would be interested in fast-tracking membership as they did for Finland and I assume they will now do for Ukraine.

Doing so would necessitate a shadow period where newly iScotland isn't yet a member but is brought under the EU umbrella with regards to things like backing up the currency. And it sounds like the EU are up for that.

The challenge is that I'm not clear everyone in the SNP is up for that!

Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?

Don't know, and I suspect the reality is that they don't know either. The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to the ECB is a mountain of fudge, so frankly its a daft argument to ascribe absolutism to a body that has never ever worked like that.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I think Sturgeon's challenge will be keeping her coalition together (inside the SNP) whilst sounding coherent about what may happen post-independence.

The *only* sane option for iScotland would be membership of the EU. Who have made statements that they would be interested in fast-tracking membership as they did for Finland and I assume they will now do for Ukraine.

Doing so would necessitate a shadow period where newly iScotland isn't yet a member but is brought under the EU umbrella with regards to things like backing up the currency. And it sounds like the EU are up for that.

The challenge is that I'm not clear everyone in the SNP is up for that!

Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?

Don't know, and I suspect the reality is that they don't know either. The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to the ECB is a mountain of fudge, so frankly its a daft argument to ascribe absolutism to a body that has never ever worked like that.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.

What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.

See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.

What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.

See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back

So, literally the second Covid hit, they suddenly discovered that crossing the channel by boat was more efficient than more traditional ways?

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.

Next.

Slightly bemused by the equation of "a hundred miles" to "a near infinity".

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.

What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.

See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back

So, literally the second Covid hit, they suddenly discovered that crossing the channel by boat was more efficient than more traditional ways?

theakes said:

By Election: Tiverton and Honiton

Not sure whether this has been noted earlier, poll for local Honiton news, NUB is the name,, have we heard of it? Anyway Conservatives stand by your beds:-
Lib Dem, 51.5
Con, 32
Labour 8
Green 4
Others 4.5
I hear some Con canvassers have been telling Labour voters to vote Labour, another sign of huge concern!
If this poll is close to the mark the Cons will do will to get into the forties.
Still as Asquith said "Lets wait and see"

IshmaelZ said:

Cefalu has a via Robert Baden Powell (fundatore del scoutismo) which we can all agree is a wholesome counterweight to all that Thelemite kinkery.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.

Next.

It worked and is still working, in Australia, which has precisely our problem. Maritime crossings

NEXT

turbotubbs said:

Sandpit said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.

I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire

Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.

For me, Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Cheshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire. And I could have made a stab at Derbyshire through semi-familoarity and Nottinghamshire with the Robin Hood thing. And Rutland because of Ruddles beer. A bit of knowledge of county cricket helps.

There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...

Edit - apparently 1983

The ashes trophy is bigger than the European Cup - until you actually see it.

That was my impression too...

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.

Not true.

"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."

"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics

Hang on:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.

That said, your point is in general correct.

If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.

See:

The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.

In the Netherlands, 98% of people from North Africa and the Middle East are processed inside 10 weeks.

Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?

Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?

There is another problem with the refugee issue and that is - to paraphrase Eisenhower - we have a Refugee-Industrial complex of charities, lawyers, influential types (plus criminals in the background) that has a lot of voice and influence, and a disproportionate impact on how we deal with things.

I agree with both yours and @Cyclefree suggestions but, even if a party did propose them, the same crowds criticising Rwanda today would be talking about how any such proposals harmed the refugees and were ‘cruel’. I’m sure mental health would crop up a lot more frequently.

The absurdity of the debate is shown by the fact these people flee France to come to the U.K., claiming it’s the only safe haven. it’s a scam, a pisstake, whatever you want to call it.

Scrap the existing laws, remake the legislation and withdraw from the Convention. And start afresh.

I agree with you, and others, that the Refugee Convention needs to be rewritten for the 21st Century.

But the Netherlands is not a country of revolutionary right wingers. That they manage to process 98% of Syrian refugees inside 10 weeks shows it can be done in a lefty-liberal democracy.

And while it costs more money initially, I'm sure it saves money in the long-term, because you don't have people sitting around for years while their applications are processed.

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Applicant said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.

Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.

Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.

As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.

PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.

Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.

No. The choice would be to backburner it or shed a ton of votes and lose power. They'd choose the first.

History suggests otherwise.

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.

The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.

Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.

It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.

As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll

Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?

More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.

I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.

There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.

If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party

Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.

The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.

The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.

There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one

I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.

You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.

How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?

The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.

The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.

Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.

It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.

And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.

And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.

Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.

It wasn't sold by Frost and Johnson as an "oven ready" committment only to avoid HMG's blushes to get "Brexit done", and once Brexit was done the deal expires, and the ECJ can go to hell.

In yours and Liz Truss's magical childlike world where Irish Prime Minister's are called "Tea Socks" your narrative might work. In the cut and thrust of International relationships we are heading towards a trade war.

I think memories have faded to just what a fecking mess we were in in 2019. There was no consensus in parliament. Time was short because of artificial rules. The EU were being shits (that's allowed, how they behave is up to them and it was important to show that Brexit was a bad idea).

We had to resolve the issues. The government did that. Yes the deal is imperfect. Yes the EU is being an arse over inspections between rUK and NI, far more so than for any other entry point. You can say why did the government lie about how good its deal was all along - it did what it had to do.

We now need to move forward and make changes. So what - every deal gets updated. Things change.

Utter nonsense.

You are relying on the goodwill of the EU not to stick security barriers between the North and South. Your idiot Government is telling the EU, "we have you over a barrel because we don't believe you will sacrifice peace in Ireland to fulfill your rights in a trade arrangements we agreed to. We dare you to set up barriers, we hold all the cards, f*** you!"

Your view and the pirate's narrative is absolutely absurd. We signed an international treaty we had no intentions of fulfilling? That being so, the EU are Neville Chamberlain waving his declaration at Heston Aerodrome, and we are...

International treaties are only broken by scoundrels or fools.

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

HYUFD said:

mr-claypole said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.

The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.

Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.

It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.

As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll

Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?

More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.

I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.

There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.

If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party

Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.

The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.

The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.

There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one

I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.

You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.

How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?

The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.

The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.

Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.

It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.

And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.

And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.

Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.

It wasn't sold by Frost and Johnson as an "oven ready" committment only to avoid HMG's blushes to get "Brexit done", and once Brexit was done the deal expires, and the ECJ can go to hell.

In yours and Liz Truss's magical childlike world where Irish Prime Minister's are called "Tea Socks" your narrative might work. In the cut and thrust of International relationships we are heading towards a trade war.

I think memories have faded to just what a fecking mess we were in in 2019. There was no consensus in parliament. Time was short because of artificial rules. The EU were being shits (that's allowed, how they behave is up to them and it was important to show that Brexit was a bad idea).

We had to resolve the issues. The government did that. Yes the deal is imperfect. Yes the EU is being an arse over inspections between rUK and NI, far more so than for any other entry point. You can say why did the government lie about how good its deal was all along - it did what it had to do.

We now need to move forward and make changes. So what - every deal gets updated. Things change.

Utter nonsense.

You are relying on the goodwill of the EU not to stick security barriers between the North and South. Your idiot Government is telling the EU, "we have you over a barrel because we don't believe you will sacrifice peace in Ireland to fulfill your rights in a trade arrangements we agreed to. We dare you to set up barriers, we hold all the cards, f*** you!"

Your view and the pirate's narrative is absolutely absurd. We signed an international treaty we had no intentions of fulfilling? That being so, the EU are Neville Chamberlain waving his declaration at Heston Aerodrome, and we are...

International treaties are only broken by scoundrels or fools.

The EU who was prepared to invoke article 16 over vaccines? Or the EU who, in my opinion, are over zealously insisting on checks beween rUK and NI to the detriment of traders moving goods entirely within the UK? The UK will not impose trade barriers between NI and Eire and we don't believe the EU would either. The suggestions brought by the UK government have been described as reasonable by folk such as @Gardenwalker, no fan of Brexit or the Tory government.

Dura_Ace said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

Chances (last year) of an asylum seeker dying while seeking to cross the channel: 0.16%
Chances (this YTD - assuming all seven are sent) of an asylum seeker being deported to Rwanda: 0.07%

I don't think these are numbers that have or will be a huge disincentive to people trying to get here via the channel.

Agreed. This only works if the government has the cullions to enforce it on everyone

I have my doubts, to put it mildly. But then again I am surprised they’ve shown the backbone to take it even this far

Doing it properly involves spending a lot of money on off shore processing facilities.

This is like a knock off version.

The Australian solution also involved tow backs which are a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective as a deterrent. No way do Johnson and Patel have the backbone for that.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics

And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.

I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.

Kinabalu is mostly right at first but goes into a blind alley at the end and is wrong at the end.

The problem is that too many people seek to let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now. I don't think the Withdrawal Agreement was a bad deal, I don't think it was a perfect deal, I think it was a good enough deal for then - but then is not now.

I never doubted there'd be problems post-Brexit, Brexit is a major reformation so of course there would be teething issues but lets not forget were we where three years ago. We were in a hysterical position where we were stuck in Article 50 limbo, unable to act, unable to get anything done, with people freaking out about all sorts of problems that were fictional. We had people on this site claiming that there'd be no strawberries on shelves at supermarkets, that there'd be no planes able to fly, that their partners could die as their medicine couldn't come across the border etc

I said then we needed to get out, find the teething problems, then fix them. The withdrawal agreement was good enough to do that, but now we're out, we need to fix any teething issues. If we'd remained trapped in Article 50 purgatory seeking to fix every hypothetical problem before we left, we'd never have left, which is of course what some wanted.

Only three years have passed since the Protocol wage agreed, but those three years might as well be a lifetime. We now know how Brexit is working, how the Protocol is working, we've been through a pandemic, and the GFA is imperilled. It is time to take action having left to fix the teething issues, while imagined problems that haven't transpired like people dying as medicine can't cross the border etc doesn't need to be dealt with.

So, how do you fix teething issues? If these are just teething issues, not fundamental flaws in the treaty, as your thesis requires, then they should be solvable by friendly and cooperative negotiation with relatively minor tweaks. So how come we’re in a situation where the government who signed the treaty is now intent on breaking it (while claiming it isn’t breaking it)?

The unavoidable conclusion is that either the Government who signed the treaty or the Government now has f***ed up. Except it’s the same Government.

You fix the teething issues by reaching a new agreement to replace the original one, a Protocol 1.1 or 2.0 if you wish, to replace the original one with the learnings we now have.

Its not the same Government, its the same people, but the Government of three years ago was a Government dealing with Article 50 trying to get the UK out of the EU which hysteria all around about all sorts of fictional problems.

The government we have now is a post-Brexit, post-TCA, post-pandemic Government that now knows what the real problems are and what is and isn't working, so the agreements can evolve as required.

Evolution never stops.

What is the best way of reaching a new agreement? Is it calm negotiation with the other party, respecting the existing agreement until a new one is sorted, or is it breaking the current agreement while pretending that you’re not breaking the current agreement?

(Also, if there was hysteria and fictional problems back then, why did that force the Govt into a premature subpar agreement? Is the Govt so weak that some misinformed commentators in the press can stop their actions?)

The best way is to try calm negotiations first (done) and if calm negotiations fail (they have) then break the agreement to fix the problems.

The agreement wasn't subpar, it was good enough for then. As I said, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.

You wouldn't expect all software released in 2019 to still be running on the exact same code, never to be patched, so why would you expect that of international agreements? Just like a major new piece of software, Brexit was released, it was inevitably going to have some bugs but that is OK, we just need to use Parliament to patch them as they are identified.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.