In retrospect we should have let Covid rip, snuffing out the extremely old and extremely fat. Thus freeing up loads of housing for young people to have babies, rebalancing the age structure of the nation, taking a huge weight off the NHS, sparing us all the horrors of lockdown; and saving £200 billion
Derrrr
So, no oyster bars but plenty of free booze en route to this mysterious 'Tuscany of Central Europe' you haven't identified for us yet.
One small glass of Viognier
I’m much more abstemious these days
I’m quite serious about “letting covid rip”. The price we have paid for lockdowns is insane in retrospect. The psychological damage. The enormous debt. The ongoing trauma
If we could have avoided health service meltdown, perhaps we should have let Covid take its course. It’s not obvious to me that we chose the best path
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Is it the Lord Chief Justice?
That's not a cabinet post, and isn't held by a member of the Commons.
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons?
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Is it the Lord Chief Justice?
That's not a cabinet post, and isn't held by a member of the Commons.
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
You said: "Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?"
Lord Chief Justice is an Office. And it cannot be held by a member of the Lords.
You'll excuse my confusion caused by me reading what you wrote.
I meant Cabinet Office, in the context of the thread, although I do note I didn't say that in the specific post you were replying to.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
My wife is currently in Kenya visiting her brother who works down there. In the past we have been involved with medical and educational work in both Kenya and Uganda (schemes set up by evil geologists like me who were trying to support local clinics and schools). I have to say from her latest reports visiting some parts of Nairobi that I am not sure 3 or even 4.5 is replacement level for those areas. Her guide a few days ago was a former street gang member who was one of 6 kids. The only one surviving. 4 brothers and a sister all died before reaching adulthood.
Can I click "Thank you for the informative reply, I learned something"? Because clickling "like" seems inappropriate.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
In the past, if the government wanted to appoint a Lord Chancellor who wasn't in the Lords, they'd appoint a Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal. Not sure why Blair didn't do this
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
I don't think that follows. Roman Catholics for example are more pro big government on average and big child benefit spending but also anti abortion.
It is right wing laissez fair libertarians most opposed to subsidised childcare and increased child benefit but they also tend to be pro choice on abortion up to a point
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Is it the Lord Chief Justice?
That's not a cabinet post, and isn't held by a member of the Commons.
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons?
I'm going to have to give you this, aren't I?
The answer is it is Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Because since 1721 that office has been deemed to be the govermnent's chief financial spokesman in the Commons, and therefore cannot, logically, be held by somebody who is not in the Commons.
It was, therefore, also not usually held by somebody other than the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was in the Commons until 1841.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
In the past, if the government wanted to appoint a Lord Chancellor who wasn't in the Lords, they'd appoint a Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal. Not sure why Blair didn't do this
Because he was coupling it with wholesale reorganisation of the judiciary.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
In the past, if the government wanted to appoint a Lord Chancellor who wasn't in the Lords, they'd appoint a Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal. Not sure why Blair didn't do this
Because he was coupling it with wholesale reorganisation of the judiciary.
And nationalising it, which went completely under the radar
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Absolutely. If you cannot afford to bring up children, don't have children. Don't expect the rest of the population to support your desire to procreate.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
In the past, if the government wanted to appoint a Lord Chancellor who wasn't in the Lords, they'd appoint a Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal. Not sure why Blair didn't do this
His aim was to get rid of the post entirely. It was very funny that he screwed it up as he didn't realise that no legislation could pass without the Lord Chancellor and that he hadn't bothered to change the law to accomodate that.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
Is the office that can't be held by a member of the Lords something like Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for some obscure reason like the conflicts that would be involved in adminstering income from estates held by the Crown, and being one of His Majesty's peers?
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level. Having 3 children or even 2 children on average is not a problem, having 1 on average as in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Japan, Italy, China, Thailand, UAE etc or even close to 0 as in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Hong Kong is
Canada also only at 1.33 fertility rate, we are still a bit higher at 1.54
Somewhat irrelevant when hundreds of thousands are pouring in to the country every year.
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Become a Starmer/Macron ‘one in’ I would have thought
The reason I ask is that without some reasonably accessible legal way of applying for asylum, you're going to need a hell of a lot of deterrence to keep people from attempting illegal means of entry. The deterrence required is a function of the accessibility of legal routes.
The Times is reporting that people who wish to claim asylum via official channels in France are finding it impossible and so taking their chances on the boats.
Calais migrants board boats as one in, one out scheme goes silent
Is it still the case that the British are saying the only place you can claim asylum is at the Embassy in Paris? I remember this being an issue a few years ago.
Apparently they’re encouraged to apply online, but the people in the article say either they get no response, or are asked for a home address, which they obviously don’t have, and so are rejected
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
On the plus side, it would wind up Lindsay Hoyle.
People breathing winds up Hoyle. He gets wound up more often than a grandfather clock with a faulty spring.
Yes, but this would send him full cuckoo.
Sounds like a wind-up.
Well done for clocking that.
I thought my reply would be the mainspring for a punfest from ydoethur, but that was not the case. No sign of a movement at all.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Nope, nothing to do with living within your means, 100 years ago the poor were on average poorer than now and still had more children. What is the level of being able to afford to? Being middle class?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
Thirteen million views of Musk’s “England flag” tweet
He has more power than most global leaders. Gotta love the guy
With bots you could make it another 13 million. He has 3 MPs. His policies are a travesty of Trump. He is the most disliked political leader in the UK. But sure, build up your Aunt Sally.
'He is the most disliked political leader in the UK'
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Absolutely. If you cannot afford to bring up children, don't have children. Don't expect the rest of the population to support your desire to procreate.
With that attitude no wonder western populations have collapsed.
Investing in the future and children of whatever class is the most important job for any society
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Nope, nothing to do with living within your means, 100 years ago the poor were on average poorer than now and still had more children. What is the level of being able to afford to? Being middle class?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
You have an odd view of NSDAP history. They had lots of financial grants and even medals for people who had lots of children. Which is objectively different from your Tory Party with its two child cap. Are you claiming that the Tory Party is compassionate ...?
Mind, only the right kind of Volkisch children counted.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level. Having 3 children or even 2 children on average is not a problem, having 1 on average as in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Japan, Italy, China, Thailand, UAE etc or even close to 0 as in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Hong Kong is
Canada also only at 1.33 fertility rate, we are still a bit higher at 1.54
Somewhat irrelevant when hundreds of thousands are pouring in to the country every year.
The English Channel has replaced the Birth Canal.
Which Farage would argue is even more reason for his mass deportations and sending the Navy to the Channel and funding increased child benefit at home and ending the 2 child benefit cap
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Absolutely. If you cannot afford to bring up children, don't have children. Don't expect the rest of the population to support your desire to procreate.
With that attitude no wonder western populations have collapsed.
Investing in the future and children of whatever class is the most important job for any society
There's lots of wealthy people. If you can afford two SUVs you can afford children. They are the people who should be doing it.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Nope, nothing to do with living within your means, 100 years ago the poor were on average poorer than now and still had more children. What is the level of being able to afford to? Being middle class?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
You have an odd view of NSDAP history. They had lots of financial grants and even medals for people who had lots of children. Which is objectively different from your Tory Party with its two child cap. Are you claiming that the Tory Party is compassionate ...?
Mind, only the right kind of Volkisch children counted.
They also believed in sterilising and even killing the disabled, Jews, non Aryan races etc so they couldn't reproduce.
The 2 child benefit cap also still enables children at replacement level, it is nothing like saying the poor should have no children at all
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Absolutely. If you cannot afford to bring up children, don't have children. Don't expect the rest of the population to support your desire to procreate.
With that attitude no wonder western populations have collapsed.
Investing in the future and children of whatever class is the most important job for any society
There's lots of wealthy people. If you can afford two SUVs you can afford children. They are the people who should be doing it.
Everybody should be doing it, wealthy or not, at least to replacement level and the wealthy should help fund child benefit at least to replacement level for those less well off than them as well
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Nope, nothing to do with living within your means, 100 years ago the poor were on average poorer than now and still had more children. What is the level of being able to afford to? Being middle class?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
You have an odd view of NSDAP history. They had lots of financial grants and even medals for people who had lots of children. Which is objectively different from your Tory Party with its two child cap. Are you claiming that the Tory Party is compassionate ...?
Mind, only the right kind of Volkisch children counted.
They also believed in sterilising and even killing the disabled, Jews, non Aryan races etc so they couldn't reproduce.
The 2 child benefit cap also still enables children at replacement level, it is nothing like saying the poor should have no children at all
You said "saying the poor should hnave no children is close to Nazi [whatever] ...". I replied to that, accurately.
You're suddenly changing 'poor' for completely different categories (about which there is no dispute, of course).
A category error if you are trying to persuade by rational argument and logic.
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Claim for asylum in a safe country.
Get a visa to come to the UK.
Wanting to speak English, or having a relative here, is a reason to want to migrate and apply for a visa. Not a divine right to come here no matter what.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Surely it would be better to support people not actually having children. As far as I can work out, child poverty would be eliminated if poor people stop having children
No, that is eugenics on a border line Nazi level.
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
Not eugenics. You should live to your means. My parents' generation got married "wnen you could afford to" which basically meant when you could afford to have a family.
Nope, nothing to do with living within your means, 100 years ago the poor were on average poorer than now and still had more children. What is the level of being able to afford to? Being middle class?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
You have an odd view of NSDAP history. They had lots of financial grants and even medals for people who had lots of children. Which is objectively different from your Tory Party with its two child cap. Are you claiming that the Tory Party is compassionate ...?
Mind, only the right kind of Volkisch children counted.
They also believed in sterilising and even killing the disabled, Jews, non Aryan races etc so they couldn't reproduce.
The 2 child benefit cap also still enables children at replacement level, it is nothing like saying the poor should have no children at all
You said "saying the poor should hnave no children is close to Nazi [whatever] ...". I replied to that, accurately.
You're suddenly changing 'poor' for completely different categories (about which there is no dispute, of course).
A category error if you are trying to persuade by rational argument and logic.
Nope, you replied to it with a complete load of rubbish, as a 2 child benefit cap is still funding 2 children even for the poorest with benefits.
OK, so the Reform "Operation Restoring Justice" headlines:
Detain & Deport "absolutely everyone arriving legally" with no admissible asylum claim and a lifetime ban from the UK Leave the ECHR and all international treaties (UN Torture etc) Create a UK Migration Command to coordinate all agencies data to find people who have gone to ground Detain until deportation Return agreements with all countries - we leverage our power by withholding visas and applying sanctions Find a 3rd country to send undocumented / unreturnable. Discuss with Albania, Rwanda and others
Putting it simply, Parliament is sovereign. We can pass any law we like in our own borders. It becomes a problem when we try and bring those laws into practice.
I see three major barriers and all are operational: 1. Detain until Deportation. The "patriots" will not allow anywhere to be used for this purpose. Nor will staff be easy to find - unless the job is to employ the "patriots" 2. The flights. Yusuf said there would be an RAF Voyager on hot standby to fill in for an unavailable commercial plane. But if the UK has abrogated all international treaties, the flights would both be illegal and uninsurable. So unless the UK government is going to operate all flights they won't happen - and then they are military flights which countries do not have to just accept. If we are sovereign, so are they. 3. Yusuf describes how hard it is to "count the uncountable". We don't know how many and therefore who they are and where they are. Farage states we would have Border Force squads lifting people - which will cause chaos. The operational issue is that so many of the "illegals" that FukU supporters want to deport aren't illegal...
Uninsured doesn't matter as the MoD carries the risk on military registered aircraft. Civil/military makes no difference if they aren't cleared for traffic or landing.
AirTanker still have 2 x Voyager leased to Jet2 that they can recall so they would have substantial capacity. The deportation racket should have been 100% RAF run anyway. Much simpler.
Quibbling over the details misses the point anyway. Your average racist chav, ie Fukker voter, just sees a plan and a commitment to action. The British state certainly has the means to do mass deportations if it has the will which it currently does not.
Not quibbling - genuinely curious. It's been an interesting watch - Farage credited the Blair government repeatedly for deporting people at speed.
I have little doubt that this would have to be an RAF operation because they won't find aircraft otherwise. Why not just say so? Does it create issues with the counterparty government we're sending people to?
According to big Dom the Royal Navy was quite prepared to tow back the small boats to France - the plan was up and running - they were happy to do it. Defending our seas is, after all, their one and only job
It was the politicians who got nervous and then the human rights lawyers exploited their nerves
All this “uninsurable” stuff is total gibberish. Also: What the F do you know you’re a north Scottish part time Tesla reviewer who believes in ghosts
If we want to deport, we can deport. Enough of this spinelessness
As always I am interested in the detail.
We can pass any law we like. We can't compel an airline to carry deportees. Insurance was a live issue when Sunak tried to organise a Rwanda flight, so we know it is an issue.
And what the F do you know, if that's your line? About insurance for airlines and aircraft leasing, specifically.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
I expect Farage will just withdraw from the ECHR no matter the consequences
He is following the Trump playbook
The backlash against mass third world migration is becoming as loud in Ireland as it is here. If the John Lennon no-borders types think a second version of the Northern Ireland Protocol will maintain their cosy status quo, I fear they will be disappointed.
It's not the Protocol the ECHR is in but the Good Friday Agreement, which is an international treaty. If Farage wants to dump that, well, its a view I suppose. I just remember the status quo ante and am not that thrilled with the idea of round 2. Specifically:
Section 2 of Strand One: This section commits the British and Irish governments to incorporating the ECHR into the law of Northern Ireland and ensuring that relevant rights are protected.
The Agreement explicitly states that “the European Convention on Human Rights…shall apply in Northern Ireland”, and both governments commit to “take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant rights are protected in law.” For the ECRH to apply in NI it has to be part of a country that is a signatory to the ECHR. You can't sign it for only part of your territory.
While there are some protests about migration in Ireland they are nowhere near as loud as here and any protests against renegotiating or dumping the GFA, or restricting the open border, will, I can assure you, be exponentially bigger.
This is nonsense. The protests about migration in Ireland are, relatively, even fiercer than here
The Irish regularly burn down asylum seeker housing. They had huge riots in Dublin on this issue. And it’s only getting worse
It is highly likely the Irish would be keen to tighten human rights laws on this subject. Because it threatens the peace in the south
There is huge public support for the GFA in Ireland and you need them to be willing to re-negotiate that. You’d have to do that before the UK could leave the ECHR otherwise you’d breach the GFA and the EU UK trade agreement.
No one has ever said fixing this would be easy and done in a day. But the bleating from the left says “this is legally and humanly impossible” - which is ridiculous
All it requires is political will
All things are possible! The point with all of it is there is almost always a counterparty to negotiate with.
Farage - like Starmer and Sunak and especially Boris! before him - is offering crayon solutions. "its all very simple", "we just do it" etc etc. The only chink in that argument was when he was asked about the GFA and he said it won't be easy and it won't be quick.
Here is the problem. The UK exiting the ECHR junks the GFA. We *could* choose to do that - with consequences. After all we would be junking so many other treaties would it matter some will ask? But yes, it matters because Norniron is part of the UK.
Same with the other "oh we'll just do x" points. Great! How? Specifics matter because they are the things that stop you from just doing x.
You're putting the cart before the horse, as many here did during the Brexit negotiations.
Yes, absolutely, renegotiating the GFA may not be quick and easy. The mistake many here make is thinking that needs to be done first, then you do what you want.
No, it needs to be the other way around. Do what you have voted to do. Then fix the GFA to reflect the new circumstances.
If you are prepared to do x then there is nothing that stops you from just doing x. Issues like the GFA amendments can be dealt with after x is done, not before.
The person who said it would need to be done first is *Nigel Farage* at the presser.
Perhaps he is less absolutist than you are because he has the risk of actually being in charge?
I would have thought Farage would have been happy to avoid any delay in renegotiating the GFA and if he thought he could get away with it he would have just left the ECHR so clearly even he realizes you can’t .
Presumably the rest of the UK could leave, leaving poor Northern Ireland needing to be fished out at some point.
The simplest way would be for the Republic to withdraw too.
Comments
And where are you going?
And most poor people still do jobs rich and middle class people don't want to
That's not nationalist or racist; surely that's an overfed Arsenal supporter who loves waffles?
(Gets coat.)
It is right wing laissez fair libertarians most opposed to subsidised childcare and increased child benefit but they also tend to be pro choice on abortion up to a point
The answer is it is Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Because since 1721 that office has been deemed to be the govermnent's chief financial spokesman in the Commons, and therefore cannot, logically, be held by somebody who is not in the Commons.
It was, therefore, also not usually held by somebody other than the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was in the Commons until 1841.
Lord chief Justice exercising the role if its vacant was the giveaway!
NEW THREAD
The English Channel has replaced the Birth Canal.
I thought my reply would be the mainspring for a punfest from ydoethur, but that was not the case.
No sign of a movement at all.
Perhaps he couldn't face it ?
Saying the poor should have no children is close to Nazi and trying to produce a master race, some would call it evil, certainly anti any form of Christian values and compassion
Not according to the polls
Investing in the future and children of whatever class is the most important job for any society
It was a big English boy.
Mind, only the right kind of Volkisch children counted.
The 2 child benefit cap also still enables children at replacement level, it is nothing like saying the poor should have no children at all
You're suddenly changing 'poor' for completely different categories (about which there is no dispute, of course).
A category error if you are trying to persuade by rational argument and logic.
All the cool people have moved over to the other thread
Get a visa to come to the UK.
Wanting to speak English, or having a relative here, is a reason to want to migrate and apply for a visa. Not a divine right to come here no matter what.
Not saying they can have no children at all
The simplest way would be for the Republic to withdraw too.