What are Ministers for? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?5 -
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
3 -
Jason Beer is very good.Andy_JS said:New post office witness has just started giving evidence. "Warwick Tatford, external counsel instructed by the PO". Jason Beer KC asking the questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kqbM0VlcnU
He can be Sir Jason Beer KC, when the PO management end up in prison.1 -
The Tories could not run a bath, serial duffers. How did these clowns ever become millionaires, certainly not due to their own skills and intelligence for sure.Razedabode said:Pretty dire for the Tories. But Rwanda was always a ridiculously unworkable policy
0 -
I have huge respect for the UK Supreme Court and we should be so thankful that it remains free of political interference.
1 -
The ludicrousness is what's most offensive.
On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/17247380995596699460 -
Bunch of doddery , half dited old private school idiots who never got over the fagging. No more idea of real life than a brick.TheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.0 -
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.3 -
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship0 -
You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?Leon said:Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"
Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...5 -
They are being processed there so I don’t understand his reasoning . The whole point was the danger that the Rwandan authorities wouldn’t process them properly and deport genuine refugees .TheScreamingEagles said:The ludicrousness is what's most offensive.
On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/17247380995596699460 -
Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?0 -
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.0 -
The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?
If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
1 -
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herselfNigelb said:
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?TheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
DUH0 -
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.david_herdson said:
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.0 -
One of mine , BTL, up January and just got new deal , big jump in rate at 6% but luckily not huge so only £100 a month extra.TimS said:
Mine’s in 3 tranches after 2 remortgages. The first went a few months ago and jumped to about 5.5% but that was thankfully the smallest of the 3 chunks. The big ones come up in 2025 by which time I also hope rates are well on the way down.malcolmg said:
ouch , that will be sore , be close to 4% jump unless a miracle happens so north of 400 a month.Pulpstar said:
What's the o/s, £150k or so ?RochdalePioneers said:
I've just signed on for a 2 year fix from 1st February. An extra £230 a month on the mortgage. Thanks Rishi!Gallowgate said:A small drop in interest rates will save me thousands of pounds. That’s all I really care about. My fixed rate expiry in February 2024 beckons…
Mid '25 remortgage for me, from 1.49% with about 182k remaining. Hopefully Iran and the USA can keep their missiles from each other in the middle east till then...
By luck I took 10 years on my main one , was a bit higher at time at 2.4% but turned out to be great decision.0 -
That's not so hard to do. Imagine her sacking rebuttal letter on steroids.MarqueeMark said:
You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?Leon said:Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"
Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...0 -
"Cleverly detached herself..."Leon said:
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herselfNigelb said:
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?TheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
DUH
DUH indeed.0 -
This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).Barnesian said:
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?2 -
That would be bloody. Block all the exits except one and insert some form of fuel-air mix in the remaining one.Barnesian said:
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.david_herdson said:
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.0 -
This hotel is astounding. Literally in the middle of the deep deep jungle
Ah. My gin and tonic has arrived
0 -
-
That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.Endillion said:
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.0 -
Indeed it might. But the "virtual incarceration" is a part of the hostile environment introduced by Mrs May. The concern is that otherwise you increase the risk of them establishing family life here and making an article 6 claim on that basis. The priority has always been to properly resource both assessments and implementation of the decisions. So many reported cases involve asylum seekers who have been in this country for a decade or more living in limbo. It is not only cruel (and it is), it is also an astonishing waste of public money.Nigelb said:
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
3 -
It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.0 -
She's certainly better at politics than sunak.xlsxMarqueeMark said:
You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?Leon said:Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"
Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...0 -
The rule of law is almost certainly the largest single difference between the UK (and most other western countries) and the likes of Argentina as described by @Alanbrooke in his recent thread header. The economic benefits of such judicial independence are massively underrated.Razedabode said:
Yes - I think I’m most proud of this fact. At least one aspect of our system worksTheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.3 -
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.Casino_Royale said:1 -
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.2 -
Looking at the Verdict on 'asylum seekers to Rwanda' that the policy is unlawful, what's Short-Term Rishi going to do now?
I think I saw him declare this morning that he will carry on regardless.
That's going to end well.
How much more Jenga can he play before the whole lot collapses?
0 -
Apparently after 12 months asylum seekers can get work permits for certain shortage jobs.Nigelb said:
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
One option would be to triage asylum seekers. Put everyone with papers from a country likely to qualify into a light touch group. And yes, invest in processing people quicker.1 -
We are in the Council of Europe, NATO and the European Political Community. The EU is set up to coordinate between member states and create common positions. It is not good at handling externalities or outside context problems like the population of Africa and MENA deciding to move north for a bit. There are many cases for being in the EU, but arguably this is not one of them.numbertwelve said:
The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?
If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?0 -
@Smyth_Chris
Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties0 -
No but it would be high Nick which is why I have said several times that the UN Convention is no longer fit for purpose in a much more mobile world. There are literally hundreds of millions living in failed or oppressive states that would qualify for asylum in the UK or any other Convention country. We simply cannot take them all which is why we try so hard to stop them coming in the first place.NickPalmer said:
It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.0 -
We should remember that Jenrick thinks an alternative plan is sending asylum seekers to Iraq . Braverman might be gone but the odious Jenrick remains .1
-
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4605701/#Comment_4605701malcolmg said:
Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?0 -
Leave the ECHR, tell Ireland that if they complain the RAF won’t protect them any more, ship these poor people out to Rwanda. Do it with the Danes and Germans so it confuses the idiot Remainers. Sorted. No more boats and no more deaths in the Med or the Channel - win win
In the end the answer will have to be something like this - it’s the only thing that has ever worked
Or a government gets really honest and says to the. British people - there is nothing we can do. Millions will come. That’s it
Good luck with that
I imagine there are some Tories who will be rather relieved to hand this over to Starmer. He will face the exact same intractable issues0 -
This ruling is the perfect opportunity for Sunak and Cleverly to chart an entirely new course on illegal immigration and leave Braverman where she belongs as a toxic unpleasant individual who failed in her job and when sacked produced a letter full of bile and inferred blackmail that the only question is why if she felt this way had she not resigned before
Sunak to speak on Rwanda at 4.45
And I apparently am now under 3 specialists addressing my health issues all of whom I have confidence in and that hopefully they can be addressed medically rather than surgically2 -
MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE0
-
It's remarkable that so many people still believe this.malcolmg said:
Rubbish, we have a bunch of chinless duffers running the show, there due to money and old boy network rather than talent.Casino_Royale said:
This is just blind prejudice.Foxy said:
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.TheScreamingEagles said:
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.ydoethur said:
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.Sean_F said:Another excellent header.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
You could wipe out every private school in the country (and bear in mind there are many different types, specialist, international, progressive, religious and traditional) and it wouldn't change this one jot.
It's absolute nonsense.1 -
It's a good job you ascribe to the lab leak theory, or you'd be shitting yourself at this point. Diseased little creatures.Leon said:MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE
Are you going to SR and PP on this trip? I'm going in Feb so looking for some tips, have booked flights (to BKK) but no accommodation or transfers yet.0 -
So we literally have no control of our borders even if we leave every treaty thanks to some international underlying law that blah blahScott_xP said:
@Smyth_Chris
Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties
What fucking nonsense. We are sovereign. We decide for ourselves. What’s gonna happen if we break this hitherto unknown “customary international law”. Who is going to prosecute. Who cares1 -
Basically, there's a whole lot that's built up that only makes sense in theory or if it's only exercised in small/modest numbers. It doesn't otherwise.williamglenn said:
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.Casino_Royale said:
But, strong political leadership is needed to fix it. Instead, what I fear we'll get, is a wholesale attack on the courts.0 -
"David Cameron destroyed the Tories
His appointment is an act of necromancy
By Aris Roussinos"
https://unherd.com/2023/11/david-cameron-destroyed-the-tories/0 -
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.0 -
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.1 -
Hello Vladimir, surprised you have time to post on PB.williamglenn said:
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.Casino_Royale said:2 -
@NatalieElphicke
The Supreme’s Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.2 -
Of course you’re right. And Braverman - for all her faults - was one of vanishingly few politicians to come out and say this: she said it in New YorkCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
But that makes her a Nazi who must be sacked. It is profoundly ridiculous - and also dangerous3 -
It's quite possible that Sunak thought he'd better sack Braverman before the judgement just in case she says or does something really over-the-top in response.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
0 -
So the only person who got put on a plane to Rwanda was Sue-Ellen.
Things didn't go entirely to plan, as she caught a flight back again.1 -
Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.malcolmg said:
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.0 -
The problem is much simpler.Foxy said:
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.Sean_F said:
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.Foxy said:
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.TheScreamingEagles said:
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.ydoethur said:
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.Sean_F said:Another excellent header.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
Read the header.Foxy said:
Certainly the dominant culture on PB of privately educated men doesn't want to accept that the system that they benefited personally from is a large part of the problem of entitlement.Malmesbury said:
The problem is much simpler.Foxy said:
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.Sean_F said:
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.Foxy said:
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.TheScreamingEagles said:
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.ydoethur said:
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.Sean_F said:Another excellent header.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
The same pattern can be seen in many, many places. The NCB was run by the very opposite of the private educated - yet they were captured by the same mentality we see causing the problems time and again.1 -
-
Mr/Ms/Mx Massive must be a very accomplished cricketer.Leon said:MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE
0 -
I do wonder if other countries might pick it up, I expect if Macron implemented the policy - France's judiciary with it's napoleonic law system would probably have no issue.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.0 -
We never deport anyone. If we do lefties start weeping on planesNickPalmer said:
This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).Barnesian said:
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.TimS said:Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
- some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
- Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
- Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
- Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
- cross fingers and hope for the best?
That said, at some point soon a western nation WILL start deportations on a massive scale. It could be America under Trump. Or Sweden or Austria maybe2 -
It's cute that you still believe the calls for a ceasefire have anything to do humanitarian concerns.Barnesian said:
That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.Endillion said:
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
Israel's still using its air force and navy as strategic support for the ground troops where necessary - it's just that ground troops are now everywhere in Northern Gaza, so obviously it isn't dropping as much ordnance as it has been.1 -
Taking that seriously for a momentviewcode said:If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
1 -
Rishi just needs to say:
Ok I achieved my inflation pledge
1 out of 5 ain't bad as Meatloaf nearly said
The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!1 -
Chortle0
-
And how do they get to the tunnels? It's not a simple solution without control of the ground, which in turn means a lot of urban fighting, which in turn means a lot of civilian casualties if Hamas is going to contest Israel's advance (which of course they are).Barnesian said:
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.david_herdson said:
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.Barnesian said:
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.david_herdson said:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:JosiasJessop said:
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.OnlyLivingBoy said:
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?Leon said:I sense this is probably true
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
- Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
- If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
- If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.0 -
Unelected judges deciding domestic policy and an unelected Lord deciding foreign policy. Hurrah for democracy.TheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
2 -
Yes, quite. The voice of reason.MarqueeMark said:
You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?Leon said:Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"
Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...0 -
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.0 -
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.Sandpit said:
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.1 -
Ugh, split infinitive. Sack them all.Scott_xP said:@kateferguson4
Supreme Court rejects the Rwanda policy
Says they "unanimously agree" with Court of Appeal1 -
Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.Sandpit said:
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.0 -
Let’s be absolutely clear here.
The problem isn’t the governments intention to try and tackle illegal migration.
The problem is that this as a policy was full of holes and designed for headlines rather than as a workable policy.
There are many routes open to the government to tackle illegal migration. Properly resourcing the border force would be a good start. Working with international partners whose borders these people cross to get here would be another. Clarifying and tweaking the law rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater may assist in certain cases. Putting in place a quick and efficient processing/asylum/justice system would mean decisions would be made quicker.
The government don’t want to do all that, because it’s not catchy, too difficult, and draws attention to the chronic underfunding and mismanagement of the system that they have presided over.
I am not suggesting these are quick fixes, but let’s not pretend that Rwanda was ever going to be a magic wand.2 -
New Zealand have had a good world cup, but looks like they're going to be blown away by the Indian juggernaut today.0
-
-
I said here, literally years ago, that assylum processing centres should be overseas, but that successful claimants should be granted assylum in the UK. I don't understand why this seems to be sinking in to politicians so slowly.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.0 -
To go further, this probably was the real tragedy of leaving the EU. Our interests on issues like this are far more in common with our neighbours than anything global. Perhaps we should have left the UN instead.Pulpstar said:
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.Sandpit said:
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.1 -
I suspect that the European countries will have to at least threaten to unilaterally withdraw from the UN agreements.Pulpstar said:
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.Sandpit said:
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
I don’t know off hand if the USA ever ratified them in the first place, given their dislike of such international agreement on anything, but they currently have the biggest refugee problem, with sometimes tens of thousands per day arriving from Mexico.0 -
LOL. In your dreams.Leon said:
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herselfNigelb said:
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?TheScreamingEagles said:Hurrah for an independent judiciary.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
DUH0 -
The problem is much simpler.Foxy said:
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.Sean_F said:
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.Foxy said:
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.TheScreamingEagles said:
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.ydoethur said:
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.Sean_F said:Another excellent header.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
Think historically.MattW said:
Taking that seriously for a momentviewcode said:If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.
Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.0 -
The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .0
-
I did actually think about mentioning Israel, and yes it’s not a bad comparison - except that, as you note, the land was disputed and there’s been war there continually ever since.Foxy said:
Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.Sandpit said:
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forwardCasino_Royale said:
A response isn't enough.DavidL said:Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.0 -
Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..1
-
Unfortunately it's only days since he blew up his pledge to reduce NHS waiting lists, by only giving the NHS supplementary funding of £100m when they said they needed £2bn.londonpubman said:Rishi just needs to say:
Ok I achieved my inflation pledge
1 out of 5 ain't bad as Meatloaf nearly said
The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!
0 -
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha1
-
Well I've got five minutes before lunch. Will that be enough time d'ya'think? Or will it perhaps take a bit more than that?williamglenn said:
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.Casino_Royale said:0 -
@TomLarkinSky
🚨 Ex Cabinet minister Simon Clarke suggests he could submit a letter in Rishi Sunak over Rwanda.
Says the PM's response to ruling it is a 'confidence issue in his judgement as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party'0 -
@PippaCrerar
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.0 -
We might get a decent deal on the "Libyan Coastguard rebadged as unofficial militia" now that aiui the European Commission no longer employ them.Malmesbury said:
The problem is much simpler.Foxy said:
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.Sean_F said:
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.Foxy said:
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.TheScreamingEagles said:
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.ydoethur said:
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.Sean_F said:Another excellent header.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
Think historically.MattW said:
Taking that seriously for a momentviewcode said:If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.
Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.0 -
Last I heard is Ukraine controls Krynki and are looking to expand the bridgehead.theakes said:Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..
0 -
I think its entirely reasonable to take stock of how the world has changed from 1945 to 2023. I have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have a legal right to asylum. I also have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have no such claim but are trying for a better life for themselves. A more mature debate might look at how best to use such people, who are by their nature the kind of people you want (aspirational, looking to improve their lot). Instead we end up stopping people working and pay huge amounts to house them to do nothing. Its madness.nico679 said:The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .
But we also have to acknowledge that you cannot simply say - everyone who want to come, can. The rights of the people of the UK have to be involved in the discussion too.4 -
10% of the population of Iran are gay?DavidL said:
Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.malcolmg said:
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.DavidL said:
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.RochdalePioneers said:So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.1 -
They’re not just odious but thick .Scott_xP said:@PippaCrerar
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.0 -
@christopherhope
BREAKING As many as six Conservative MPs are set to submit letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Conservative Party this week, rebel Tory MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns tells @GBNEWS. Tune in now.
The absurdity of Brexit neatly encapsulated in the words Dame Andrea Jenkyns2 -
@breeallegretti
Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.
When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.0 -
Does it? British law still applies to British flagged vessels in territorial waters. Suranne Jones had to solve that murder on a submarine.viewcode said:If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
It's not like the glory days of the RN when the Admiralty used to wait for low tide at Wapping to hang larrikins in the intertidal zone beyond landlubber law.
The UK should pay Wagner to intercept them on Russian flagged vessels, house the fugees on clapped out cruise ships then sail them off to who-gives-a-fuck-where.0 -
Clearly they didn't listen to the judgment which expanded it beyond the ECHR and by all 5 judges unanimouslyScott_xP said:@PippaCrerar
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.0 -
LOLScott_xP said:@PippaCrerar
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.0
