Nicks
Well-known member
Just let them all in and bury there heads in the sand
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......
- Thread starter nevergoagain
- Start date
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
We could when we were in the EU but some people decided it was a great idea to leave.
Maybe google Parliamentary Proceedure. These days computers can read text out to you and Chat GPT can put it in very simple words if needed, so no excuses.
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
Evidently.
Do you honestly think that if the French wanted to stop the boats they wouldn't be able to?
I'm sure if the boats were being used, for example, to bring drugs onto French beaches, the French police/coastguard would be there.
The French are more than happy to let the problem move elsewhere.
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
BTW, the boat issue is a complete red herring - 'legal' nett migration is far too high - yep, we need immigration, but the numbers are now simply unsustainable.
The French are responsible for any deaths in their waters so there’s some responsibility.
I’m sure they’d prefer help with rounding up the gangs and stopping people setting out than popping boats though - hence the Labour plan.
This thread is verging into the subject of many previous threads on the subject of immigration. The plain fact is, around 75% of "illegal" immigrants are granted asylum when the Home Office actually get round to examining their cases.
And, by the way, you don't need a valid passport to claim asylum in this country, and we can NOT turn asylum-seekers straight back once they are inside home waters.
One of our challenges as a country is that we need LOTS of people in industries/professions where either UK nationals don't want to work (eg: care homes) or where we don't have enough skilled people (eg: construction). The solution is to promote policies which increase wages in those professions, and also put a huge effort into training "our own" people....something which successive governments have failed to prioritise (especially the last Conservative government). Hopefully that will change now we have some sensible people in charge (albeit, this is no short-term fix).
nevergoagain
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #989
But when you see the coverage of some of the boats leaving the French police aren't allowed to enter the water, even when it's shin deep, plenty of times I've seen them standing by when they could quite easily get there and puncture the boat before it leaves the shoreline. Disgustingly we've paid the French a small fortune to police their own shores badly.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
And I am sure the French might blame the Italians, Spanish, German, and Swiss governments for allow migrants to cross illegally from their borders.
Tubby Mondays
Well-known member
Yeah we don’t want all that tax income and people staffing the NHS or care homes for examples.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 5,785
Always been a difficult one, isn’t the definition of asylum, seeking it at the first free border you come to?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,772
they do. we'll see how effective this government can be targeting the gangs along the chain of travel, what new actions can be taken then haven't been tried.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Maybe take the demand out of it. Better processing, more collaboration, even organised controlled crossings - deal with the root cause not the symptom. At the end of the day people are desperate enough to climb into an over crowded inflatable to cross the channel - what’s the deterant if you’re already willing to make that crossing?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 11,525
Isn't that a bit of a cop out though?
Preumably we should only have to accept Asylum seekers from France/Wales/Scotland.
Surely it's fairer to share the demand out across multiple countries.
nevergoagain
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #996
Absolutely and that would be a fair way to do it. What I can't get my head around is why, having made it for example across the med you would then travel the length of europe to northern France and then risk your life and pay thousands of euros to shady dealers to get on yet another boat to cross a treacherous stretch of water. If you are really escaping persecution/danger then why do it again when you don't need to and where on earth are they getting the money to pay for it.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 5,785
Obviously, maybe the UN should have been sorting out a fairer system years ago?
- Oct 20, 2022
- 5,932
Someone needs to brush up on our legislative process before getting all uppity with posters that know more than they do about politics
- All the Bills mentioned in the King’s Speech are proposed Statutory legislation - they are NOT law - for a Bill that has been presented to Parliament to become law/an Act of Parliament, it has to go through several Committee stages, several ‘readings’, ‘report stages’, debates, House of Lords, amendment debates and finally Royal Assent. The passage of a Bill through Parliament can easily take an entire Parliamentary session, if not longer.How many people were sent to Rwanda between the announcement of the Rwanda plan and it being scrapped? And, how much did it cost?
FOUR. Four people went to Rwanda voluntarily , at a total scheme cost of £700m before the Tory plan was stalled by legal challenges.
It remains to be seen if using the resources set aside for the Rwanda scheme will produce more than 4 Asylum seekers being housed while waiting to be processed but I’m willing to bet, based on the new Border Security, Asylum & Immigration Bill, that the Labour Government’s holistic approach will be more effective in combatting irregular migrants and people smuggling syndicates operating throughout the EU than anything the Tories came up with and will be a darn sight more humane too.
Yvette Cooper: Tories spent £700m on Rwanda scheme
The home secretary says the scheme is "the most shocking waste of taxpayers' money I have ever seen".
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Tubby Mondays
Well-known member
Err I think you’ve totally missed the point I was making which is the same as yours!Someone needs to brush up on our legislative process before getting all uppity with posters that know more than they do about politics
How many people were sent to Rwanda between the announcement of the Rwanda plan and it being scrapped? And, how much did it cost?
FOUR. Four people went to Rwanda voluntarily , at a total scheme cost of £700m before the Tory plan was stalled by legal challenges.
It remains to be seen if using the resources set aside for the Rwanda scheme will produce more than 4 Asylum seekers being housed while waiting to be processed but I’m willing to bet, based on the new Border Security, Asylum & Immigration Bill, that the Labour Government’s holistic approach will be more effective in combatting irregular migrants and people smuggling syndicates operating throughout the EU than anything the Tories came up with and will be a darn sight more humane too.
Yvette Cooper: Tories spent £700m on Rwanda scheme
The home secretary says the scheme is "the most shocking waste of taxpayers' money I have ever seen".www.bbc.co.uk
The simple answer is that the vast majority of people who make those choices do so because they have a connection to the UK….either a relative, or a good understanding of English. Our colonial legacy means that the UK has a significant attraction for many people in peril.
However, it’s also worth pointing out that the vast majority of asylum seekers do NOT try to reach the United Kingdom. Countries like Germany, France, Sweden and Italy receive loads more applications than we do.