Strokes Posted 14 June 2022 Share Posted 14 June 2022 7 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said: It's brilliant isn't it. Top banter. Bloody Europeans telling us what to do. I didn't vote for Brexit to let this happen.... All those telling us that we’ve always been a sovereign nation when signing away these powers, are looking quite silly. Still some more powers to grab back before that happens. I don’t particularly care much about this ruling, I don’t care much about about asylum seekers in this country. I think we should have much bigger priorities but this just plays into the polarisation and celebrating it, rubbing noses in it will too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tories planned this all along, gets there own voters back looking where they want them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted 14 June 2022 Share Posted 14 June 2022 1 hour ago, weller54 said: It's not the only answer, but it's certainly part of it! Fact is there are a number of jobs in certain sectors that the Brits won't do!!..... it's beneath them. They will for the right wages. But we can't have an unlimited stream of economic migration into this country just because the want a better life for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, leicsmac said: Right. I wonder how the people with "concerns about immigration" are going to react when there's a billion people all needing a new place to live, eat and drink in a timeframe of around a decade, not too far away? Having looked around to confirm, it might not be a billion, but... https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/njlite/srex/njlite_download.php?id=5866 "Professor Myers’ estimate of 200 million climate migrants by 2050 has become the accepted figure—cited in respected publications from the IPCC to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change... "....Current estimates range between 25 million and 1 billion people by 2050." Reckon the UK can fly all of them to Rwanda? Simply put, worldwide immigration policy or energy generation policy or both is going to have to change, or it's going to mean trouble for a great many people - hundreds of millions, perhaps. NB. This is all rather conjectural - the report admits that - but when you're dealing with a situation of this magnitude, even if the odds are rather low (as opposed to so low to not consider) it might not be a bad idea to plan accordingly. Edited 15 June 2022 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 15 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said: Said to have cost £250k Australian cruel refugee policy cost LITERALLY BILLIONS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ In the 2021-2022 financial year, final expenditure by the Australian government on offshore processing will be A$957 million (up from a projected cost of A$812 million) The Refugee Council of Australia has compiled a detailed list of offshore processing costs by category, and notes that processing asylum seekers offshore has cost the Australian government A$9.65 billion from July 2013 to the 2021-2022 financial year. In addition to that wasted money...there have been too many deaths, uncountable mental health issues and the loss to Australia of potential Socceroos and generalised income from the wealth that immigrants provide, etc etc etc. Plus... you teach an entire society that it is fine to lock up INNOCENT people INDEFINTELY and then other stupid insular little countries think its a good idea and copy you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_Loyal Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 Plays right into the Tories hands this I expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzle Fox Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 14 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said: Plays right into the Tories hands this I expect. Already seeing idiots falling for the "it's the EU stopping us" when the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU and was in part set up by that woke leftie Winston Churchill! Also will make no difference to the people smugglers and will barely touch the edges of perceived immigration problems. As I have said elsewhere it is merely gesture politics and will die on its arse in short order. The only way to stop the people smugglers is to create safe routes and an efficient processing system, but unfortunately that would require a grown up, responsible, humane approach, which is counter intuitive to this government. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pSinatra Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 Mission accomplished For the Tories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 I don't much like the Rwanda policy, and I wonder whether the Government are even serious about it, or whether it is part of the 'being seen to be doing something about the boats" approach. That said, I do think there is an argument for returning people who are clearly economic migrants and come to the UK via several safe countries looking for work. And I don't blame people for wanting to come here, but they must go through the proper channels - not across the channel. For a start it is not safe to do so, and more people succeed the more will try it. Policy which welcomes people who come illegally puts others at risk of death. The question is then, if you cannot send them back to France, where do you send them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionator Posted 15 June 2022 Author Share Posted 15 June 2022 I’m certain there’s a large proportion of people in this country (30%) who would support putting refugees/asylum seekers into internment camps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionator Posted 15 June 2022 Author Share Posted 15 June 2022 Just now, Jon the Hat said: I don't much like the Rwanda policy, and I wonder whether the Government are even serious about it, or whether it is part of the 'being seen to be doing something about the boats" approach. That said, I do think there is an argument for returning people who are clearly economic migrants and come to the UK via several safe countries looking for work. And I don't blame people for wanting to come here, but they must go through the proper channels - not across the channel. For a start it is not safe to do so, and more people succeed the more will try it. Policy which welcomes people who come illegally puts others at risk of death. The question is then, if you cannot send them back to France, where do you send them? You create safe passages to travel, you temporarily accommodate asylum seekers and have a functional processing system. Then you process their asylum application and if they meet criteria you take them in, if they don’t then you deport them back from where they came from. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 Just now, Lionator said: You create safe passages to travel, you temporarily accommodate asylum seekers and have a functional processing system. Then you process their asylum application and if they meet criteria you take them in, if they don’t then you deport them back from where they came from. Sounds nice, but the reality is any safe passage would be swamped with people, and so would the massively expensive accommodation and the processing system which is already failing to keep up. Then when you do decide they must leave, you cannot send them back to where they came from, because they came from France who won't let them back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 (edited) 2 things on this. 1) This policy is a complete win win for the Conservatives. The deportations happen they are finally seen to be doing something. The deportations don't happen and they have a new enemy to demonize for the next 2 years that only Boris can slay. Its never about sensible long term policy for the benefit of all with this lot. Its about making you angry whilst they slowly run the country down for the profit of their donors. 2) Maybe just maybe if we didn't blindly follow US Foreign policy for 40+ years and bomb the homes of these people they wouldn't come here looking for a place to live. That also goes for selling weapons to regimes that are bombing these people. We can't expect to do all that and get away scot free. The US get it nice and easy because they can destabilize the entire middle east to suit their own agenda and know that their 'allies' that are geographically closer will suffer the consequences. Edited 15 June 2022 by Dames 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 10 hours ago, weller54 said: It's not the only answer, but it's certainly part of it! Fact is there are a number of jobs in certain sectors that the Brits won't do!!..... it's beneath them. Especially true for bald headed 40+ year old geezers down the boozer that haven't worked consistently for 25 years due to a 'bad back' yet still have plenty to say about foreigners stealing their opportunities. Nothing wrong with their backs of course when it comes to defending Churchills statues and doing nazi salutes though. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 1 hour ago, Dames said: Especially true for bald headed 40+ year old geezers down the boozer that haven't worked consistently for 25 years due to a 'bad back' yet still have plenty to say about foreigners stealing their opportunities. Nothing wrong with their backs of course when it comes to defending Churchills statues and doing nazi salutes though. That description perfectly describes the typical Brexiteer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 2 hours ago, Lionator said: You create safe passages to travel, you temporarily accommodate asylum seekers and have a functional processing system. Then you process their asylum application and if they meet criteria you take them in, if they don’t then you deport them back from where they came from. So we keep waving thousands of folk in weekly. Then when we try to deport them we can't because none of them have any paper work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 2 hours ago, Dames said: Its never about sensible long term policy for the benefit of all with this lot. Its about making you angry whilst they slowly run the country down for the profit of their donors. All sounds very familiar. We had this for 9 years with the Liberal/National (conservative) government here in Australia. Now got a Labor government that actually seems to be trying to govern for the good of the country, and it’s a breath of fresh air. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shram Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said: Sounds nice, but the reality is any safe passage would be swamped with people, and so would the massively expensive accommodation and the processing system which is already failing to keep up. Then when you do decide they must leave, you cannot send them back to where they came from, because they came from France who won't let them back in. A friend of mine told me part of the issue is the application process before travelling is very very difficult. Perhaps a middle ground should a process that gives people the ability to apply before travelling, if they are approved they are actively moved into a system that means when they arrive they have to work (we have more job openings than people), so they contribute, NI etc before benefits. This should be a non negotiable system set up to integrate people into working/society. For those who fail, or throw away their documentation and come ver they are then moved on (although the Rwanda approach is horrible it might be a deterrent if there's a means to apply prior, as they have no excuse). If you have no document there's no grounds for stay. Obviously there's an admin cost but I'd think it's better than continuously using tax payers money for no return. The other challenge is how we resolve the issue of those already here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 (edited) Don't think it's very likely we leave the ECHR. Would mean we also leave the Council of Europe (by convention, members must also sign up to the ECHR), and would throw the GF Agreement into more doubt. Complete madness to announce the government might do it. To what end? We have representation in that court. Edited 15 June 2022 by Beechey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 Weird PMQs today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 38 minutes ago, RoboFox said: Weird PMQs today. No lies from the PM today?. That would be very weird 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmt Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 "On the amount of money the scheme costs, she says you cannot place a price on a life lost at sea in the English Channel" from BBC PMQs coverage. This is such bollocks. A huge amount of government spending, in particular decision-making on health funding, is founded in the belief that you absolutely can put a price on the value of life (ie. the statistical value of a life). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 35 minutes ago, bmt said: "On the amount of money the scheme costs, she says you cannot place a price on a life lost at sea in the English Channel" from BBC PMQs coverage. This is such bollocks. A huge amount of government spending, in particular decision-making on health funding, is founded in the belief that you absolutely can put a price on the value of life (ie. the statistical value of a life). What value did they put on all the Care home residents they sent to their deaths during the first wave of covid!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxdiamond Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 52 minutes ago, bmt said: "On the amount of money the scheme costs, she says you cannot place a price on a life lost at sea in the English Channel" from BBC PMQs coverage. This is such bollocks. A huge amount of government spending, in particular decision-making on health funding, is founded in the belief that you absolutely can put a price on the value of life (ie. the statistical value of a life). Yes. NICE make these judgements on a regular basis as I understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 15 June 2022 Share Posted 15 June 2022 51 minutes ago, bmt said: "On the amount of money the scheme costs, she says you cannot place a price on a life lost at sea in the English Channel" from BBC PMQs coverage. This is such bollocks. A huge amount of government spending, in particular decision-making on health funding, is founded in the belief that you absolutely can put a price on the value of life (ie. the statistical value of a life). Idealistically, a human life should have price beyond anything material, and only comparable to another life in terms of price. Practically, in a time and space where the generation and distribution of resources necessary for life is still imperfect enough to have scarcity be a factor, of course some decisions have to be made that put a material price on a human life. Perhaps the hallmark of a truly developed society is one where such discussions are no longer needed. Maybe we'll get there one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts