Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Reform’s leads falls by 5% if you exclude non-voters – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325
    Can we at least use the boats crisis to focus on the associated issues? We're not building enough houses to cope with the numbers coming. With comparisons to various cities-worth arriving. But then again if asylum went to zero tomorrow we're still not building enough houses. And we can't build enough houses because we don't have enough builders which is how we end up needing migrants.

    OK, we stop the boats. And then suffer a major recruitment crisis which cripples a whole stack of things we need. So as well as stop the boats, how about we engage on training a big expansion of builders and sparkies and joiners and care workers and medics and and and.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Now, Now. Have some respect for Jenners. He's nearly as tall as John Bercow.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325
    MattW said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Yes ! That's all "if I ruled the world for a day" fantasy stuff.
    So I have read on here, the common sense do it tomorrow solutions include shooting people and scrapping the rule of law so that people can be rounded up off the streets and immediately deported without trial or process or even verification of identity.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,699
    carnforth said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    And what if the rejected ones get into boats?
    I think when you get rejected you get deported?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,319
  • novanova Posts: 834

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,097

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    Why are you so confident?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,097
    edited June 1

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's
    something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we
    have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    Wasn’t that photo staged?

    Edit: to clear not the Katie Hopkins nut job conspiracy theory (“he’s alive and well”). But I’m sure I recall an interview where the photographer said he arranged the body to maximise the impact.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,831

    MattW said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Yes ! That's all "if I ruled the world for a day" fantasy stuff.
    So I have read on here, the common sense do it tomorrow solutions include shooting people and scrapping the rule of law so that people can be rounded up off the streets and immediately deported without trial or process or even verification of identity.
    But only bad people, obviously. And any rounding up will definitely only be used on bad people, with no mistakes or governments turning sour. Unlike all the precedents in history.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,699

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Not sure how workable that is to be honest.
    How do you define "deliberately"? You'll get tied up in court cases no end.
    And many legit businesses will probably go under because all a non shareholder manager has to do is hire twenty people illegally, shop them and become a millionaire.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,727

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
    I think so too and, in spite of his ‘sorry not sorry’ type of ‘apology’ for the Nazi comparisons earlier this week he clearly is of the same mindset as Starmer.

  • TazTaz Posts: 18,727

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    Why are you so confident?
    His consistent track record of delivery ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    edited June 1

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Data only started being collected in 2018 and boat crossings certainly started then if not before

    And it seems Jenrick is really getting to you for some reason


    https://news.sky.com/story/small-boat-crossings-pass-10-000-at-earliest-point-in-year-since-records-began-sky-news-understands-13357691
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,043

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    While that would have a very positive impact on the scale of the black market in the UK (and therefore the number of small boats), we also need to speed up the asylum claim process. And it would also help if we had an asylum claim acceptance rate similar to that of our neighbours.

    This combination - of a massive market for blackmarket labour, of asylum processes that never end, and even if they do you can slip into the informal labour market - is absolutely toxic. And every element of it needs to be tackled.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    MattW said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Yes ! That's all "if I ruled the world for a day" fantasy stuff.
    So I have read on here, the common sense do it tomorrow solutions include shooting people and scrapping the rule of law so that people can be rounded up off the streets and immediately deported without trial or process or even verification of identity.
    You have, as I have, but the vast majority know these are not even remotely credible and add nothing to the debate
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    Thoughts on the Ukraine attack on Russia.

    - I wonder how many more similar or different drones the Uke's have hidden in Russia; it's a big place, mainly empty.

    - It is reported to have taken 18 months to prepare; I'd say quite a lot of that would be working out how to manage the Russian response to keep it non-nuclear, given I think that they have gone for some nuclear capable aircraft which Putin has been using to attack them.

    - In addition to stopping the bombing, it's a huge headache for Russia to survey / scout out their airbases, and protect them in future. That's analogous to the resources Germany had to put into air defence in WW2 - by 1944 that was using 1.2 million people.

    - Running it over Russian telecom networks not via sat coms is a message to Mr Trump - "are you sure that it is us who don't have any cards?", and "how will you stop us"?

    - The chatter I am seeing around the USA sites is about protection of their nuclear deterrent, especially aircraft. Also, Diego Garcia seems a little short of hardened shelters.

    - I predict a rapid insertion of hardened shelters into our RAF investment programme. AFAIK we have not built many for a very long time, and some of our very thin resources (eg AWACS replacments, air tankers?) may not be well protected.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,376
    Stereodog said:

    malcolmg said:

    nova said:

    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters
    What do you think the French would do in response?
    try and tow them back , so we just need to have the best most powerfiuls ships.
    sink a few and they will stop coming
    Sure. If they do get onto the beach at Dover just machine gun a few dozen and that'll set an example.
    "Keep the sand out of your weapons. Keep those actions clear. I'll see you on the beach."
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,177
    edited June 1
    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    edited June 1
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,043
    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 967
    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
  • Look at me. I am the captain now.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,177
    edited June 1

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,528
    edited June 1

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's
    something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we
    have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    Wasn’t that photo staged?

    Edit: to clear not the Katie Hopkins nut job conspiracy theory (“he’s alive and well”). But I’m sure I recall an interview where the photographer said he arranged the body to maximise the impact.
    I researched it a bit at the time. The story was actually very dark. The father was alleged by many different sources to be a people trafficker, and many witnesses before the event expressed certainty that he intended to do away with his unfortunate wife, who had been very frightened, during the crossing - and by extension the child also. I don't think he had been expecting to be tracked down by the media circus after it happened - he was apparently off doing something completely different.

    But the media was on board the 'pricking the conscience of the world' train and didn't investigate further. It was only the looming Brexit referendum that saved us from accepting a flood like Germany, otherwise Cameron would have been signing us up with the speed of a spooked whippet.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968
    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    From a cynical political perspective, it might be better for a government to encourage more asylum seekers to disappear into the black economy. Most Reform types seem to get more annoyed at migrants waiting in hotels for their claim to be processed (which is what they're supposed to do) than with poor sods working on a farm somewhere for 50p an hour.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,831
    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    Part of the problem is... what does success look like here?

    Nobody sensible and/or humane can want the current situation to carry on. (Albeit with the caveat that this isn't... so far... an "anything would be better than this" situation.) And the sort of boring, procedural things you describe are likely to do a decent job of reducing the numbers of people and boats. For all the noise they made, the Sunak government did the migration equivalent of hiding red utility bills under the mattress. People arrived, weren't processed, so just piled up.

    But reduction doesn't equal zero. And I suspect that quite a few voters have frothed themselves up enough that zero is what they want.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,528
    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
  • novanova Posts: 834
    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,109

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Data only started being collected in 2018 and boat crossings certainly started then if not before

    And it seems Jenrick is really getting to you for some reason


    https://news.sky.com/story/small-boat-crossings-pass-10-000-at-earliest-point-in-year-since-records-began-sky-news-understands-13357691
    Radio 4 has a fascinating 10 part series interviewing a smuggler. Episode 5 is (very) small boats.... 1970s 7m grp sailing boat from Ramsgate to Dunkirk and back
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,831

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Since it was established that "only obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    isam said:

    I mentioned here that my Mum had a fall and was taken to Wexham Park Hospital in Slough. Well she was moved nearer home, to Queens in Romford, on Friday, and let out today.

    Have to say that Wexham Park, built in 1965, was a really nice place, lots of natural light and a peaceful feel to it. Queens however, built in 2006, is a claustrophobic hellhole. Wards with no natural light, you might as well be a mile underground. The patients I spoke to had no idea if it was night or day, and found it depressing. Poor planning I’d say, and cant be good for recovery either

    Turns out Wexham won awards for it’s design

    “the hospital was built in the 1960s on the site of an old Victorian mansion called Wexham Park, and won an award from the Royal Institute of British Architects for its design. 'A place where one could happily spend a holiday' was one description, and 'better equipment than most hotels'.”

    http://www.sloughhistoryonline.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=slough&f=generic_theme.htm&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&=theme_record_id=sl-sl-wexham&s=6erlXFNo7n7

    I'm sorry to hear that about your newish hospital.

    That lead me to check Google Reviews, which has 1700 reviews for Queens Romford averaging 2.5 stars. Mine - Kings Mill, Sherwood, which is a slightly smaller size (600 bed) has 3.7 star, and that was in real trouble just over a decade ago and last time I checked was best rated in the East Midlands.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Queens+hospital+in+Romford
    https://www.google.com/search?q=kings+mill+hospital
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879
    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    That was an absolutely stunning day. A lifetime peak artistic experience in the morning, a very pleasant local lunch (quiche Lorraine and Moselle wine) by a purling Ardennois river, a mighty gothic castle built on a Roman fortress with a stupidly big wine cellar, then Aperol spritz in the riverine heart of an ancient town. And now the birdsong outside my balcony is fervent and beautiful, as the early summer sun sets over the 12th century walls of Vianden

    Genuinely top notch travel stuff. And it happened in Luxembourg
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    Why did we Brexit, again?
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Most militaries have a code of conduct which gives them a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Even under the Nazis every soldier had a paybook which told them they had a duty to disobey any illegal orders. It was a key factor in challenging the 'just following orders' defence at Nuremberg and beyond.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,528

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
    Pochdale Rioneers is just beginning to understand that his party isn't even at the races on this issue, or frankly on much else that's gone wrong with the country. Sir Ed thinks being more Centrist Dad than Labour and then jumping in a pond is going to get them anywhere - No, it's not.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,544

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's
    something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we
    have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    Wasn’t that photo staged?

    Edit: to clear not the Katie Hopkins nut job conspiracy theory (“he’s alive and well”). But I’m sure I recall an interview where the photographer said he arranged the body to maximise the impact.
    No. I think what you are remembering is that the body was moved (to stop it washing back out to sea presumably), but then the photographer came along and took the photo.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,043

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    AIUI it was (and is) Government policy that the Armed Forces should obey the law, which is the long and short of it. They could have pushed back; presumably they did not.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    edited June 1
    Leon said:

    That was an absolutely stunning day. A lifetime peak artistic experience in the morning, a very pleasant local lunch (quiche Lorraine and Moselle wine) by a purling Ardennois river, a mighty gothic castle built on a Roman fortress with a stupidly big wine cellar, then Aperol spritz in the riverine heart of an ancient town. And now the birdsong outside my balcony is fervent and beautiful, as the early summer sun sets over the 12th century walls of Vianden

    Genuinely top notch travel stuff. And it happened in Luxembourg

    Do we expect a "YES !!!" in the gazette?

    (Off for a walk before sunset.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,043
    Leon said:

    Why did we Brexit, again?

    I must admit, I'm regretting it now. If we were still in the EU, we might have been able to persuade you to stay in Luxembourg.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,544

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's
    something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we
    have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    Wasn’t that photo staged?

    Edit: to clear not the Katie Hopkins nut job conspiracy theory (“he’s alive and well”). But I’m sure I recall an interview where the photographer said he arranged the body to maximise the impact.
    I researched it a bit at the time. The story was actually very dark. The father was alleged by many different sources to be a people trafficker, and many witnesses before the event expressed certainty that he intended to do away with his unfortunate wife, who had been very frightened, during the crossing - and by extension the child also. I don't think he had been expecting to be tracked down by the media circus after it happened - he was apparently off doing something completely different.

    But the media was on board the 'pricking the conscience of the world' train and didn't investigate further. It was only the looming Brexit referendum that saved us from accepting a flood like Germany, otherwise Cameron would have been signing us up with the speed of a spooked whippet.
    There were conflicting reports about the role of the father, although I never saw anything suggesting he had deliberately set out to kill his wife. Wikipedia has a summary at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alan_Kurdi#Arrests_of_alleged_perpetrators The father denied being a people trafficker and that was also the conclusion of the Turkish authorities.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,528
    Leon said:

    That was an absolutely stunning day. A lifetime peak artistic experience in the morning, a very pleasant local lunch (quiche Lorraine and Moselle wine) by a purling Ardennois river, a mighty gothic castle built on a Roman fortress with a stupidly big wine cellar, then Aperol spritz in the riverine heart of an ancient town. And now the birdsong outside my balcony is fervent and beautiful, as the early summer sun sets over the 12th century walls of Vianden

    Genuinely top notch travel stuff. And it happened in Luxembourg

    It's great that you get so enthusiastic - it must really help you as a writer. But you haven't described anything that is remotely surprising or unexpected for a pleasant European tax haven/backwater.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
    Pochdale Rioneers is just beginning to understand that his party isn't even at the races on this issue, or frankly on much else that's gone wrong with the country. Sir Ed thinks being more Centrist Dad than Labour and then jumping in a pond is going to get them anywhere - No, it's not.
    And yet we absolutely smashed it at the locals 😘
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,528

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Since it was established that "only obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence?
    God help us when we need them to *actually* do anything, the useless shower.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846
    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
    I agree. In my experience Switzerland is all the same standard food wise

    Unless you’re actually going Michelin 3 star it will all be ok to quite pleasant but unexceptional, so there’s
    zero point in paying for posh

    What is worth paying for is a view. Eating besides glittering lake Lucerne or Lugano is wonderful. But you might as well eat a burger as you gaze

    Another way around insane Swiss prices is supermarkets. They are very good and full of great cheese and bread and charcuterie. You can’t move for brilliant picnic spots in Switzerland so why not stock up on picnic stuff and a bottle of wine and head for the hills over looking a sunlit waterfall that tumbles to an alpine lake

    THAT is bliss and will cost you a quarter what you’d pay in a restaurant. And you won’t ever forget it
    Last time I was in Geneva I had a 'Hello Kitty' rucksack with me (no - don't ask). The waitress in the Japanese restaurant near my hotel was very excited by it and arranged a massive discount on my bill.

    Almost made up for being in Geneva.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,544
    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
    Is that true? The Government (this and the last one) says that most claim asylum and few evade authorities.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432

    Leon said:

    That was an absolutely stunning day. A lifetime peak artistic experience in the morning, a very pleasant local lunch (quiche Lorraine and Moselle wine) by a purling Ardennois river, a mighty gothic castle built on a Roman fortress with a stupidly big wine cellar, then Aperol spritz in the riverine heart of an ancient town. And now the birdsong outside my balcony is fervent and beautiful, as the early summer sun sets over the 12th century walls of Vianden

    Genuinely top notch travel stuff. And it happened in Luxembourg

    It's great that you get so enthusiastic - it must really help you as a writer. But you haven't described anything that is remotely surprising or unexpected for a pleasant European tax haven/backwater.
    I just told you that the world’s greatest permanent photographic exhibition can be found in a restored chateau in the rural north, in a tiny ancient pretty village (that was blown to shit in the battle of the bulge)

    The exhibition is so good it left me somewhat speechless for several minutes. The way only truly truly great art can do

    I can’t remember the last time I had that reaction to magnificent art. I know it has happened on occasion. but it’s been a long time. I will have to think

    You casually expect that in a backwater of Luxembourg? I don’t - or didn’t
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Since it was established that "only obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence?
    God help us when we need them to *actually* do anything, the useless shower.
    Yes they'll be totally unprepared for when we *actually* need them to intentionally drown civilians.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,043

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
    Is that true? The Government (this and the last one) says that most claim asylum and few evade authorities.
    Most claim asylum because they are caught.
  • novanova Posts: 834
    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.
    Of course they won't succeed enough to placate Farage, because that will be Farage-defanged. :wink:

    His entire political strategy is marketing based on boosting then riding a reaction to "They Failed !!!". Being unplacated is a foundational building block.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,376
    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Most militaries have a code of conduct which gives them a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Even under the Nazis every soldier had a paybook which told them they had a duty to disobey any illegal orders. It was a key factor in challenging the 'just following orders' defence at Nuremberg and beyond.
    Is that why the Wehrmacht shot so many Polish, Jewish, and Soviet civilians?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,544
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
    Is that true? The Government (this and the last one) says that most claim asylum and few evade authorities.
    Most claim asylum because they are caught.
    I'm sure that's true in some cases, but do you have some evidence that that is the majority strategy?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,744

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
    Is that true? The Government (this and the last one) says that most claim asylum and few evade authorities.
    Most claim asylum because they are caught.
    I'm sure that's true in some cases, but do you have some evidence that that is the majority strategy?
    We have no idea because we only know about the ones that are caught, same as the numbers. We say it was 1200 because they caught 1200 today....doesnt mean they failed altogether to notice another 1200, or even 12000 that have simply disappeared into the black
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
    I agree. In my experience Switzerland is all the same standard food wise

    Unless you’re actually going Michelin 3 star it will all be ok to quite pleasant but unexceptional, so there’s
    zero point in paying for posh

    What is worth paying for is a view. Eating besides glittering lake Lucerne or Lugano is wonderful. But you might as well eat a burger as you gaze

    Another way around insane Swiss prices is supermarkets. They are very good and full of great cheese and bread and charcuterie. You can’t move for brilliant picnic spots in Switzerland so why not stock up on picnic stuff and a bottle of wine and head for the hills over looking a sunlit waterfall that tumbles to an alpine lake

    THAT is bliss and will cost you a quarter what you’d pay in a restaurant. And you won’t ever forget it
    Last time I was in Geneva I had a 'Hello Kitty' rucksack with me (no - don't ask). The waitress in the Japanese restaurant near my hotel was very excited by it and arranged a massive discount on my bill.

    Almost made up for being in Geneva.
    lol

    The only good thing about Geneva is CERN. Which is genuinely amazing

    The rest is meh, and scrotum-tighteningly expensive meh

    Tbf to Switzerland it soon improves as you move away from the city
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    That was an absolutely stunning day. A lifetime peak artistic experience in the morning, a very pleasant local lunch (quiche Lorraine and Moselle wine) by a purling Ardennois river, a mighty gothic castle built on a Roman fortress with a stupidly big wine cellar, then Aperol spritz in the riverine heart of an ancient town. And now the birdsong outside my balcony is fervent and beautiful, as the early summer sun sets over the 12th century walls of Vianden

    Genuinely top notch travel stuff. And it happened in Luxembourg

    It's great that you get so enthusiastic - it must really help you as a writer. But you haven't described anything that is remotely surprising or unexpected for a pleasant European tax haven/backwater.
    I just told you that the world’s greatest permanent photographic exhibition can be found in a restored chateau in the rural north, in a tiny ancient pretty village (that was blown to shit in the battle of the bulge)

    The exhibition is so good it left me somewhat speechless for several minutes. The way only truly truly great art can do

    I can’t remember the last time I had that reaction to magnificent art. I know it has happened on occasion. but it’s been a long time. I will have to think

    You casually expect that in a backwater of Luxembourg? I don’t - or didn’t
    I had some very fulsome praise from a gas engineer about my photography today. Quite made me blush.

    Also, interestingly, he has been 'vibe coding' apps for his fellow engineers, and also making custom GPT's primed with UK gas/plumbing regulations to answer questions about faults etc, and offer solutions grounded in those reg's.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,831
    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    Heck, small boats probably aren't even the main way that people get into the UK in ways that the law doesn't recognise.

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
    I agree. In my experience Switzerland is all the same standard food wise

    Unless you’re actually going Michelin 3 star it will all be ok to quite pleasant but unexceptional, so there’s
    zero point in paying for posh

    What is worth paying for is a view. Eating besides glittering lake Lucerne or Lugano is wonderful. But you might as well eat a burger as you gaze

    Another way around insane Swiss prices is supermarkets. They are very good and full of great cheese and bread and charcuterie. You can’t move for brilliant picnic spots in Switzerland so why not stock up on picnic stuff and a bottle of wine and head for the hills over looking a sunlit waterfall that tumbles to an alpine lake

    THAT is bliss and will cost you a quarter what you’d pay in a restaurant. And you won’t ever forget it
    Last time I was in Geneva I had a 'Hello Kitty' rucksack with me (no - don't ask). The waitress in the Japanese restaurant near my hotel was very excited by it and arranged a massive discount on my bill.

    Almost made up for being in Geneva.
    lol

    The only good thing about Geneva is CERN. Which is genuinely amazing

    The rest is meh, and scrotum-tighteningly expensive meh

    Tbf to Switzerland it soon improves as you move away from the city
    CERN has a very good cafeteria. Recommend. A++ lunches.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,376

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
    Pochdale Rioneers is just beginning to understand that his party isn't even at the races on this issue, or frankly on much else that's gone wrong with the country. Sir Ed thinks being more Centrist Dad than Labour and then jumping in a pond is going to get them anywhere - No, it's not.
    And yet we absolutely smashed it at the locals 😘
    Reform = 677 councillors won in 2025
    LDs = 370 councillors won in 2025
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
    I agree. In my experience Switzerland is all the same standard food wise

    Unless you’re actually going Michelin 3 star it will all be ok to quite pleasant but unexceptional, so there’s
    zero point in paying for posh

    What is worth paying for is a view. Eating besides glittering lake Lucerne or Lugano is wonderful. But you might as well eat a burger as you gaze

    Another way around insane Swiss prices is supermarkets. They are very good and full of great cheese and bread and charcuterie. You can’t move for brilliant picnic spots in Switzerland so why not stock up on picnic stuff and a bottle of wine and head for the hills over looking a sunlit waterfall that tumbles to an alpine lake

    THAT is bliss and will cost you a quarter what you’d pay in a restaurant. And you won’t ever forget it
    Last time I was in Geneva I had a 'Hello Kitty' rucksack with me (no - don't ask). The waitress in the Japanese restaurant near my hotel was very excited by it and arranged a massive discount on my bill.

    Almost made up for being in Geneva.
    lol

    The only good thing about Geneva is CERN. Which is genuinely amazing

    The rest is meh, and scrotum-tighteningly expensive meh

    Tbf to Switzerland it soon improves as you move away from the city
    CERN has a very good cafeteria. Recommend. A++ lunches.
    So I heard and I was really keen to stay! But didn’t have time. It’s a compelling place

    I remember the woman at the cash desk casually pointing at a humdrum building as she said “oh that’s where they make antimatter”

    Brilliant
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Most militaries have a code of conduct which gives them a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Even under the Nazis every soldier had a paybook which told them they had a duty to disobey any illegal orders. It was a key factor in challenging the 'just following orders' defence at Nuremberg and beyond.
    Is that why the Wehrmacht shot so many Polish, Jewish, and Soviet civilians?
    That's exactly the point. Allied prosecutors were able to say that every soldier from Private to General knew they had a duty to disobey orders to shoot civilians.
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 967
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
    Where are you getting Trzaskowski at 48.70% in live results from?
  • novanova Posts: 834
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    The ones who are about to get caught claim asylum.

    Read the accounts of the smugglers - they get plenty of loads through completely undetected.
    Indeed: the goal of most people on small boats is for there to be absolutely no record of them being in the UK.
    Is that true? The Government (this and the last one) says that most claim asylum and few evade authorities.
    Most claim asylum because they are caught.
    I realise it's difficult to prove a negative, but I've not heard a huge amount of claims like this. Do you have any sources?

    If there was a good chance of crossing undetected, then why are the majority of people caught from countries that are likely to have success claiming asylum? There was a huge influx of Albanians a few years back, but this was pretty much stopped when there was an agreement to send them back put in place. If you had a good chance of being able to disappear, why don't we still see a lot of Albanians being caught?

    And, as there's a pretty high chance that asylum claims will be accepted, which would allow people to live with a normalised immigration status - plus as you mentioned previously, the opportunity for those who fail to disappear into the shadow economy at a later date - where's the incentive to go into the shadow economy straight away?

    I'd have thought we'd never hear the end of the "and many thousands more who are never caught" whenever Farage brings up the subject, if this was the case.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    In Seville. Stunning, but too many tourists (yes I know the hypocrisy). It has been 30 years since my last visit. Cordoba and Granada to come.

    On e gates and luggage: Seville is quite a small airport and we were the only plane to land at that time and we had to walk through baggage reclaim so here are the anecdotes:

    s) It had e gates but they weren't in use. So even if you were one of those Brits who managed to get an Irish EU passport it was tough, you had to queue with the British plebs. Presumably they open them when an EU
    dense flight comes in.

    b) From an entire easyJet plane only about 10 people were collecting hold luggage.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    I simply think you are wish casting on this

    The boats is toxic for Labour who enter their second year in office in little over a month, and when you say a few thousands crossing the channel each and every one is putting their lives at risk and especially if they have children with them but also the crews of the RNLI whose job is to save lives at sea and who also have to recover the bodies of those including children from the waters

    As you may know I have a personal interest in this as our son is a helm on our local lifeboat, and indeed was recently involved in an 8 hour overnight search for a young man who was recovered the following day after the efforts of the police spotterplane, the police underwater search teams, the coastguard and their helicopter and 3 lifeboats
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,986

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    A lot of British people will be unable to get jobs under your regime, because they will not be able to prove their right to work here within a £50,000 margin of error. I myself have faced this problem.

    There is also a perverse incentive to report any suspicions at all, so the police will spend all their time checking every single delivery driver just in case the informant can cop a £50,000 reward.
  • novanova Posts: 834

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    Heck, small boats probably aren't even the main way that people get into the UK in ways that the law doesn't recognise.

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/

    Or rather, the main way is likely to be people arriving in ways the law does recognise, but just not leaving.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,435
    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Since it was established that "only obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence?
    God help us when we need them to *actually* do anything, the useless shower.
    Yes they'll be totally unprepared for when we *actually* need them to intentionally drown civilians.
    A politicised paramilitary force to do the government's bidding - yes, there will be volunteers - is precisely where we'll end up one day if regular government departments refuse to enact the policies of the elected administration of the day.

    Let's hope it never comes to that.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,986
    Ukraine says Russia has launched the biggest number of drones in the 3-year war.
    https://x.com/AP/status/1929154228859064328

    Russian retaliation was bound to follow.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Data only started being collected in 2018 and boat crossings certainly started then if not before

    And it seems Jenrick is really getting to you for some reason


    https://news.sky.com/story/small-boat-crossings-pass-10-000-at-earliest-point-in-year-since-records-began-sky-news-understands-13357691
    I find him to be a disingenuous shape shifting populist.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    kjh said:

    In Seville. Stunning, but too many tourists (yes I know the hypocrisy). It has been 30 years since my last visit. Cordoba and Granada to come.

    On e gates and luggage: Seville is quite a small airport and we were the only plane to land at that time and we had to walk through baggage reclaim so here are the anecdotes:

    s) It had e gates but they weren't in use. So even if you were one of those Brits who managed to get an Irish EU passport it was tough, you had to queue with the British plebs. Presumably they open them when an EU
    dense flight comes in.

    b) From an entire easyJet plane only about 10 people were collecting hold luggage.

    AIUI they charge £7-10 for pre booked hold luggage, or £50 if you turn up with it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,544
    From https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/ , as linked to above:

    Most people who arrive in the UK by small boat subsequently apply for asylum – around 94% of those who arrived between 2018 and the end of September 2024. Of those who received an initial decision, around 70% were granted protection, similar to the grant rate for all asylum applications.

    That page, using ONS data, also gives about twice as many visa overstayers as asylum seekers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    A lot of British people will be unable to get jobs under your regime, because they will not be able to prove their right to work here within a £50,000 margin of error. I myself have faced this problem.

    There is also a perverse incentive to report any suspicions at all, so the police will spend all their time checking every single delivery driver just in case the informant can cop a £50,000 reward.
    I'm interested that you would gave faced such a problem.... Note that similar rules are in force at the moment, the fines are lower and there is no reward for reporting. Hence employers wanting photocopies of passports.

    A relative runs a building company and does a background check on his employees. The UK ones present a passport. The non-UK present their passports and their visa/right to work documentation.

    What would actually happen is that employing illegals would stop - simply not worth the risk.

    Deliveroo might collapse or put up its prices by a factor of 3. What a shame.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    MattW said:

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
    In the middle of the Sunk Johnson Government (sorry), they were asked and rejected even "pushing back". They told Priti Patel to take a running jump.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/channel-migrant-crossings-navy-rejects-push-back-plan/
    They should have been told to go fuck themselves. Since when has the Navy dictated what it wants to do?
    Most militaries have a code of conduct which gives them a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. Even under the Nazis every soldier had a paybook which told them they had a duty to disobey any illegal orders. It was a key factor in challenging the 'just following orders' defence at Nuremberg and beyond.
    Is that why the Wehrmacht shot so many Polish, Jewish, and Soviet civilians?
    That's exactly the point. Allied prosecutors were able to say that every soldier from Private to General knew they had a duty to disobey orders to shoot civilians.
    There's a story bubbling under about UK Special Forces killing civilians and surrendered personnel in Iraq to prevent their presence being revealed.
  • novanova Posts: 834

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    I simply think you are wish casting on this

    The boats is toxic for Labour who enter their second year in office in little over a month, and when you say a few thousands crossing the channel each and every one is putting their lives at risk and especially if they have children with them but also the crews of the RNLI whose job is to save lives at sea and who also have to recover the bodies of those including children from the waters

    As you may know I have a personal interest in this as our son is a helm on our local lifeboat, and indeed was recently involved in an 8 hour overnight search for a young man who was recovered the following day after the efforts of the police spotterplane, the police underwater search teams, the coastguard and their helicopter and 3 lifeboats
    I appreciate why you might think that about the wishcasting.

    I'd suggest that obviously there are "small thing" that can add up (as a previous poster mentioned), and it's clear Labour have an incentive to do them.

    The Tories thought they could benefit from the issue, so had little incentive to actually solve anything. When up against Labour, they would always be able to offer up more dramatic solutions, even if they didn't work. Labour (despite some attempts), can't get close to out-outraging Reform or the Tories, so what can they do except try to implement as many things that will minimise the issue as possible?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879
    nova said:

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    Heck, small boats probably aren't even the main way that people get into the UK in ways that the law doesn't recognise.

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/

    Or rather, the main way is likely to be people arriving in ways the law does recognise, but just not leaving.
    One major route is selling visas for jobs that don't exist/don't pay anything like what is claimed. So you get a real visa from the Home Office. Apparently the rate for this is £15K.

    This is why the direct recruitment by care houses from abroad is being stopped.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Data only started being collected in 2018 and boat crossings certainly started then if not before

    And it seems Jenrick is really getting to you for some reason


    https://news.sky.com/story/small-boat-crossings-pass-10-000-at-earliest-point-in-year-since-records-began-sky-news-understands-13357691
    I find him to be a disingenuous shape shifting populist.
    He certainly has been in the headlines recently and highlighted things that matter to people
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,319
    edited June 1

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    I listened to a YouTube video in which John Curtice said that Reform's polling at 30-31%, combined with their evenly distributed support, would mean "certainly they would be easily the biggest party" [in Parliament] and perhaps they would have a majority.

    This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Reform's support were absolutely evenly distributed at 30-31% in every constituency, given a four-party contest, a Reform victory would require - essentially - all four parties to be roughly in the 20-31% range. Historically, that kind of result has been pretty rare in UK elections.

    And that is even without considering the scope for tactical voting. I am still convinced there would be an unprecedented level of tactical voting against Reform - even by some Conservatives, given the polling data posted here recently. I didn't hear any mention of tactical voting in the video. But perhaps I missed it.

    I'm afraid Curtice is projecting historical behaviour not only incorrectly in its own terms, but well beyond its applicability in unusual circumstances.

    Was there any evidence of anti-Reform tactical voting at the local elections?
    Is there any evidence a General Election where you elect a PM and put someone in charge of the economy is remotely the same as a local shire council election?
    I wasn't expecting there to be a lot of crossover between the two types of election but you'd expect just a little bit of it happening at the locals if a lot of it might happen at the general.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,177

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Thank you for your response but the way immigration is presently perceived, it has to be reduced further than the recently reduced figure under Sunak of 431,000 though I agree that migrants should be allowed to work once they have made an application

    However, we both know there are two immigration issues, legal and illegal, and the boats are a vivid example of illegal migration that is now in our media every day and is toxic for Starmer and labour

    Of course we shouldn't be distracted by extreme views of sinking the boats etc, as this will not happen even if Reform were in government

    Unfortunately, Starmer and Hermer are the wrong politicians at this time to resolve the issue, and I simply expect it to fester for a long time and not to labour's electoral advantage
    Pochdale Rioneers is just beginning to understand that his party isn't even at the races on this issue, or frankly on much else that's gone wrong with the country. Sir Ed thinks being more Centrist Dad than Labour and then jumping in a pond is going to get them anywhere - No, it's not.
    And yet we absolutely smashed it at the locals 😘
    Reform = 677 councillors won in 2025
    LDs = 370 councillors won in 2025
    Con lost 674 seats
    Lab lost 187 seats

    It's a two horse race!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    From https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/ , as linked to above:

    Most people who arrive in the UK by small boat subsequently apply for asylum – around 94% of those who arrived between 2018 and the end of September 2024. Of those who received an initial decision, around 70% were granted protection, similar to the grant rate for all asylum applications.

    That page, using ONS data, also gives about twice as many visa overstayers as asylum seekers.

    You still do not understand the problem

    The boats are totemic and no amount of distraction will shift this perception until they are stopped or at least substantially reduced
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,073
    Liz Truss
    @trussliz
    ·
    1h
    President Trump is right to target failing institutions like Harvard.

    I know from experience captured bureaucracies need to be taken on.

    We need a Trump style revolution in Europe.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1929247596595339609


    Lettuce hope Farage doesn't let this lunatic into Reform.
  • novanova Posts: 834

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    nova said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nova said:

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    Well, at least it's a plan.

    Until the entire shadow economy is ended, doesn't it give people quite the incentive to come to the UK? They don't even need to claim asylum. You might even get a deal where one of the asylum seekers is set up as the owner of the new car wash, and the other 50 shop them to the police.

    Then again, given that the vast majority of people coming over on boats claim asylum, why would the lack of a shadow economy stop them?

    It might ultimately make it more difficult for those that fail to get refugee status, who would hope to then disappear into the shadow economy. But wouldn't Labour's plan of moving deporting failed asylum seekers to a third country be a little quicker to implement?
    A lot of people who are here as part of the asylum process get "lost" and slip into the black economy. If you remove that option, then there is only the legal asylum route.

    If we then processed claims quickly, deported accordingly, and had acceptance rates similar to our peers, that would go a long way to sorting out the issue.

    Generally speaking: lots of small things will tend to make more of an impact than one big thing. Unfortunately, politicians (and commentators) are all rather wedded to silver bullets (Rwanda, Fawklands, etc.).
    I agree with all that.

    From what we've seen so far, "small things" is hopefully the route that Labour are trying to go down.

    I doubt they'll succeed enough to placate Farage, but you'd hope that crackdowns on the shadow economy, closer work with France, quicker deportations to third countries as soon a claim fails, quicker processing, moving away from hotels, etc., will gradually make some difference.

    The sooner that the "most important" thing in the country isn't people crossing the channel in small boats, the better for our political discourse.
    Labour have now had a year, more or less. And the numbers in the boats are going UP

    So whatever it is they’re doing - SMASH THE GANGS - it ain’t working

    Also the sneering on this site is quite unbearable. Any Brit worried about literally thousands of illegal invaders landing on our shores is a “frother”

    Go fuck yourselves. This is why Labour will lose and deserve to lose. Humans have a very natural desire to see their homes and homelands not be invaded and trashed. This is not “frothing”
    They've had less than 11 months. The main Border bill is still going through Parliament. You don't repair relationships with the French, and get them to change their laws overnight. Clearing a backlog takes a long time when you've already got delays in the courts. Only Trump can solve problems on day one ;)

    If your 'sneering' was aimed at my "most important" issue comment, then surely you'd agree that it would be better if we were discussing something other than a few tens of thousands of people crossing the channel each year? You may feel strongly about it, and that's fine, but it's not even a the major part of immigration to the UK. It's not as important to most people's lives as the NHS, or the economy, or even their local bin collections. There are plenty of other more important issues in most people's day to day lives.
    Heck, small boats probably aren't even the main way that people get into the UK in ways that the law doesn't recognise.

    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/

    Or rather, the main way is likely to be people arriving in ways the law does recognise, but just not leaving.
    One major route is selling visas for jobs that don't exist/don't pay anything like what is claimed. So you get a real visa from the Home Office. Apparently the rate for this is £15K.

    This is why the direct recruitment by care houses from abroad is being stopped.
    I did like the quotes from Yvette Cooper, when the care sector was claiming they'd collapse if she cut back on visas.

    She suggested they might want to employ some of the people they'd already given visas to in the last few years.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,517

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
    Where are you getting Trzaskowski at 48.70% in live results from?
    This is extremely close. Polish exit polls are usually pretty spot on, but the talking heads on TVP are not ready to call it yet. Much mentioning of Brexit and how the initial exit poll got it wrong. There will be another update in about an hour, but this looks like the closest election of the Third Republic. It is touch and go at the moment.

    Still Trzaskowski is just ahead at the moment- but by less than a point.
  • novanova Posts: 834

    Liz Truss
    @trussliz
    ·
    1h
    President Trump is right to target failing institutions like Harvard.

    I know from experience captured bureaucracies need to be taken on.

    We need a Trump style revolution in Europe.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1929247596595339609


    Lettuce hope Farage doesn't let this lunatic into Reform.

    To be fair, she's worked out that MEGA is easier to say than MUKGA.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,177

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
    Where are you getting Trzaskowski at 48.70% in live results from?
    Here. You gave me the link!

    https://polandelects.com/

    Trzaskowski is now at 53.68%
  • eekeek Posts: 30,187

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
    A lot of British people will be unable to get jobs under your regime, because they will not be able to prove their right to work here within a £50,000 margin of error. I myself have faced this problem.

    There is also a perverse incentive to report any suspicions at all, so the police will spend all their time checking every single delivery driver just in case the informant can cop a £50,000 reward.
    I'm interested that you would gave faced such a problem.... Note that similar rules are in force at the moment, the fines are lower and there is no reward for reporting. Hence employers wanting photocopies of passports.

    A relative runs a building company and does a background check on his employees. The UK ones present a passport. The non-UK present their passports and their visa/right to work documentation.

    What would actually happen is that employing illegals would stop - simply not worth the risk.

    Deliveroo might collapse or put up its prices by a factor of 3. What a shame.
    The problem is that passports are the easiest way to proof right to work but getting a passport is complex if you don't already have your initial one..
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,517
    edited June 1
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
    Where are you getting Trzaskowski at 48.70% in live results from?
    Here. You gave me the link!

    https://polandelects.com/

    Trzaskowski is now at 53.68%
    That is only one Gmina, - Wloclawek, I think- not the national number.
  • MattW said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Yes ! That's all "if I ruled the world for a day" fantasy stuff.
    So I have read on here, the common sense do it tomorrow solutions include shooting people and scrapping the rule of law so that people can be rounded up off the streets and immediately deported without trial or process or even verification of identity.
    But only bad people, obviously. And any rounding up will definitely only be used on bad people, with no mistakes or governments turning sour. Unlike all the precedents in history.
    So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
    Data only started being collected in 2018 and boat crossings certainly started then if not before

    And it seems Jenrick is really getting to you for some reason


    https://news.sky.com/story/small-boat-crossings-pass-10-000-at-earliest-point-in-year-since-records-began-sky-news-understands-13357691
    I find him to be a disingenuous shape shifting populist.
    He certainly has been in the headlines recently and highlighted things that matter to people
    What matters to me is a man in Cabinet saving the pornographer Desmond £45m in tax due to Tower Hamlets Council.whilst Housing Minister.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,177
    Cicero said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Many thanks DC.

    So we very much want Trzaskowski to win!

    With 0.4% counted it is nil, nil.

    https://polandelects.com/

    But exit poll Trzaskowski at 49.7%!
    No he was 50.3% in the exit poll.

    I wonder at what % counted they will release the vote totals? Poland doesn't show the live count IIRC.
    I stand corrected. But well within the margin of error.
    Live results have just come up.
    Trzaskowski at 48.70%
    Very early days!! 0.41% counted.
    Where are you getting Trzaskowski at 48.70% in live results from?
    Here. You gave me the link!

    https://polandelects.com/

    Trzaskowski is now at 53.68%
    That is only one Gmina, - Wloclawek, I think- not the national number.
    It's 222 out of 32143 stations. Tiny. Five ms reporting so far including Wloclawek where Trzaskowski is on 57.8%.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    Quite an interesting piece about the potential drone threat in the UK, from the editor of the UK Defence Journal, who regularly flies his drone (with CAA and police knowledge) to report on frigates being built at Glasgow.

    He reports at least a dozen drones flying at the launch of HMS Glasgow, with a number in restricted air space.

    Earlier this year, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland. I asked how many drone incidents had been recorded in the area surrounding a number of shipyards since January 2020. Their response revealed that 99 drone-related incidents had been reported within the Flight Restriction Zone during that period.

    Only four of those incidents resulted in crime reports, and only two led to detected crimes, where a suspect was identified and a report submitted to the Crown Office. In both of those cases, the drones were confiscated.


    This is going to be tightened up on in due course. It's the same phenomenon we were discussing last week of a perceived entitlement to break the law if we decide that it is "minor".

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-age-of-drone-warfare-has-arrived-is-uk-industry-safe/
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,055

    Liz Truss
    @trussliz
    ·
    1h
    President Trump is right to target failing institutions like Harvard.

    I know from experience captured bureaucracies need to be taken on.

    We need a Trump style revolution in Europe.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1929247596595339609


    Lettuce hope Farage doesn't let this lunatic into Reform.

    If Harvard is failing I wish my deoartment was failing as badly!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,376
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
    I agree. In my experience Switzerland is all the same standard food wise

    Unless you’re actually going Michelin 3 star it will all be ok to quite pleasant but unexceptional, so there’s
    zero point in paying for posh

    What is worth paying for is a view. Eating besides glittering lake Lucerne or Lugano is wonderful. But you might as well eat a burger as you gaze

    Another way around insane Swiss prices is supermarkets. They are very good and full of great cheese and bread and charcuterie. You can’t move for brilliant picnic spots in Switzerland so why not stock up on picnic stuff and a bottle of wine and head for the hills over looking a sunlit waterfall that tumbles to an alpine lake

    THAT is bliss and will cost you a quarter what you’d pay in a restaurant. And you won’t ever forget it
    Last time I was in Geneva I had a 'Hello Kitty' rucksack with me (no - don't ask). The waitress in the Japanese restaurant near my hotel was very excited by it and arranged a massive discount on my bill.

    Almost made up for being in Geneva.
    lol

    The only good thing about Geneva is CERN. Which is genuinely amazing

    The rest is meh, and scrotum-tighteningly expensive meh

    Tbf to Switzerland it soon improves as you move away from the city
    Did the train from Geneva Airport to Geneva (free ride, at least it was back in 2014), and also the train from Geneva to Lausanne and on to Montreux.

    In 2009 and 2010, I did back to back rail trips from Zurich Airport to Zurich and on to Chur in the east of the country.
Sign In or Register to comment.