[Politics] Stop the boats

[drew]

It’s how referendums are supposed to work. A so called 52-48 result should not stand in such a vital decision.

Personally I think leavers were lucky to get a referendum at all. It was a stupid idea from the start.

If you asked a room full of 6 yr olds whether they want broccoli or Haribo for dinner, I think you’d get an Haribo majority. Because kids are stupid.

In my view the only reason we had a referendum was due to how pathetic Cameron was. In 2010, despite a successful PR campaign to blame Brown for the global crash, he failed to win a majority and therefore he was vulnerable to the far right of his party and the Brexit vote. (I'd also blame Clegg for propping up a Tory government despite Libdem values being more closely aligned to a Milliband Labour party) Cameron ran scared and promised a referendum to secure his 2015 election win and then promptly agreed a referendum without proper thought. Should have required a higher bar to pass, eg 60% of the electorate. As it was, about 600,000 votes decided the trajectory of the country and we know there were underhand tactics. Yes, there was a fear campaign on the remain side but then there were a host of false promises on the leave side and as you said, you promise kids Haribo then that's what they vote for only for them only to be delivered boiled cabbage (remember the woman on Question Time who admitted she made her decision to vote for brexit instead of remain when she picked up a banana in the supermarket and it was straight and she thought of all the silly rules, which I'm guessing she believe from the papers she read!!).

 

[Audax]

But there have been surveys that showed that stopping the boats is the population's main worry. I suppose by implication you will now claim that the arrival of thousands of illegal and unchecked immigrants every year is something that the majority of the British people relish.

"Stopping the boats" is something that I think everyone, across the political spectrum, can agree with. No one with a shred of common decency actually wants those people to be getting in those boats and making the dangerous crossing.

Where the debate really lies is in *how* we "stop the boats". And I very much doubt (plenty of polls available that support my view, I believe) that a majority agree that Braverman's Rwanda policy is the right way to do it. It's basically trying to copy the Australian solution, but they've not copied the whole Australian solution. And it's important to remember that the early versions of the Australian solution that most closely resembled the current Rwanda solution did not work. The Australian solution only works because Australia has working treaties with countries-of-origin to monitor for, detect, and intercept boats outside of Australian territorial waters, and for those boats to be returned to the country of origin - and as part of that, the refugees on those boats are made aware of the (key part coming up) legal routes for claiming asylum in Australia from outside Australia.

The Tories a) do not have a working treaty / agreement with France (or other potential points of origin for boats), and b) have closed off legal avenues for claiming asylum from outside the UK. They've created the problem with boats, and the only solution they seem to be interested in is one that is never going to stop the boats because they've not learned the lessons from Australia.

Rigging it in advance then - ''We're not going to respect the will of the majority if it goes against us."

It's not rigging it. It's recognising that very narrow margins do not provide a clear, workable mandate for change of the magnitude that Brexit created, especially when no one at the time of voting knew what specific form Brexit might take. In the form that referendum was presented, it absolutely should have had a higher threshold than 50%. 60% possibly too extreme, but 55% at least would have been justified. Or another avenue that could have been taken would be to copy Australia's approach: require not just a majority of voters nationally, but also a majority of the major devolved regions to vote in favour (NI, Sco, Wales, Eng).

It’s how referendums are supposed to work. A so called 52-48 result should not stand in such a vital decision.

Personally I think leavers were lucky to get a referendum at all. It was a stupid idea from the start.

If you asked a room full of 6 yr olds whether they want broccoli or Haribo for dinner, I think you’d get an Haribo majority. Because kids are stupid.

I agree. Especially given the "Leave" option was so open. Personally believe the legal framework should have been along these lines:

1. Keep the question that was asked, leave it open. I don't think changing the question itself was necessary.
2. Require a clear victory: 55% minimum to initiate change (Farage made statements to the effect that a narrow win for Remain shouldn't end the debate, same should have applied in reverse).
3. Should "Leave" achieve that clear victory, stipulate that a "confirmation referendum" should take place once the exact format for Brexit had been agreed.

Part 3 is the clear part. A large part of the official Leave campaign made promises and/or suggestions that were not ultimately followed through. There are likely to have been a lot of people who voted Leave thinking they would get a "soft" Brexit who would have voted Remain if given a straight choice between Remain vs the hard Brexit we've got.

 

[BLOCK F]

No, you might not have been fooled by PR stunts, you might just be a selfish greedy bastard who wants to pay no taxes and have less public sector services because, as Tories often say, the individual knows better as to how to spend their money than the state!!! The people that were fooled were those that believed Cameron and his 'one nation' toryism who then went and did a major reorganisation of the NHS despite saying they wouldn't, that cancelled Surestart, that stopped investment in crumbling schools etc etc. Or maybe some were fooled into thinking Brexit was the answer or that all the problems in this country are caused by Johnny foreigner. Or cutting over 10k police and then having to recruit 10k more because they f***ed up. The list is endless.

And as for being patronising, how many times to the right bang on about the 'looney left' or that they are anti woke etc etc.

What an absolute insult of a reply to someone who tries to maintain a reasonable approach to politics and to the views of those that don’t agree with a centre right approach.
Just so as you know, my father was a GP who started up in practice just before the NHS was formed and gave many years of service working extremely long hours for his patients with little or no thought for his own health, and indeed, our family life suffered somewhat because of the attention he gave to his patients over his family! My mother was a nurse who served throughout the war in a large London hospital. My uncle was a surgeon who served in the Navy in the Second World War, after he qualified. His wife, my aunt, was also a doctor. For good measure, my sister worked as a teacher in the state system for her entire career and my youngest son has worked in the charitable sector for most of his career since graduating. My eldest son is also a teacher in the state system. Hardly the background of a selfish greedy bastard, as you suggest I may be. You know absolutely nothing about me and although I try not to take things too seriously on this forum, I do find your reply rather abysmal.
By the way, I have said previously in various discussions that I have no time for Johnson or this Tory Government and I shall not be voting for them in the next election. They need a long time in Opposition to come to their senses. That does not mean that I have lost my centre right approach to politics or that I am a greedy selfish bastard. I also voted No to Brexit.

 

[drew]

What an absolute insult of a reply to someone who tries to maintain a reasonable approach to politics and to the views of those that don’t agree with a centre right approach.
Just so as you know, my father was a GP who started up in practice just before the NHS was formed and gave many years of service working extremely long hours for his patients with little or no thought for his own health, and indeed, our family life suffered somewhat because of the attention he gave to his patients over his family! My mother was a nurse who served throughout the war in a large London hospital. My uncle was a surgeon who served in the Navy in the Second World War, after he qualified. His wife, my aunt, was also a doctor. For good measure, my sister worked as a teacher in the state system for her entire career and my youngest son has worked in the charitable sector for most of his career since graduating. My eldest son is also a teacher in the state system. Hardly the background of a selfish greedy bastard, as you suggest I may be. You know absolutely nothing about me and although I try not to take things too seriously on this forum, I do find your reply rather abysmal.
By the way, I have said previously in various discussions that I have no time for Johnson or this Tory Government and I shall not be voting for them in the next election. They need a long time in Opposition to come to their senses. That does not mean that I have lost my centre right approach to politics or that I am a greedy selfish bastard. I also voted No to Brexit.

With due respect, and credit to the members of your family that have done what they did, it is not about what a family have done or where they have come from, it is about the views of an individual.

I note that you have stated you won't vote for the Tories this time round which suggested you did before. So perhaps you could let us know what motivated you to vote for the Tories in the past?

 

[Audax]

countries-of-origin

Should say here that when I refer to "countries of origin" in my above post, I am not referring to the origin of the people on the boats. I'm referring to the country the boats left from.

Useful reading here:

How Australia wrote the 'stop the boats' playbook

The policy slogan used by Rishi Sunak is the same as that used 10 years ago in Australia.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BLOCK F]

With due respect, and credit to the members of your family that have done what they did, it is not about what a family have done or where they have come from, it is about the views of an individual.

As I said, you know nothing about me, so to suggest I may well be a selfish greedy bastard just because I generally hold centre right views, is a huge presumption on your part and is a pretty sweeping condemnation of many of your fellow citizens. I would never be so presumptuous as to issue a wholesale insult to those who hold a different view to my own.
I told you a little about my elders and offspring just to give you some kind of background to the influences I may have had in my life and some of the values that my children may have picked up from their father, to possibly give you a clue as to what I may be like. I obviously failed to convey this successfully.
Anyway, life goes on, I’ve got babies to eat and a bit of tent pinching from the homeless to carry out, not to mention tax evasion and general all purpose thoroughly selfish behaviour. I don’t know how I can fit it all in; there just isn’t the time when I’ve got all that cash to count.

 

[The Clamp]

As I said, you know nothing about me, so to suggest I may well be a selfish greedy bastard just because I generally hold centre right views, is a huge presumption on your part and is a pretty sweeping condemnation of many of your fellow citizens. I would never be so presumptuous as to issue a wholesale insult to those who hold a different view to my own.
I told you a little about my elders and offspring just to give you some kind of background to the influences I may have had in my life and some of the values that my children may have picked up from their father, to possibly give you a clue as to what I may be like. I obviously failed to convey this successfully.
Anyway, life goes on, I’ve got babies to eat and a bit of tent pinching from the homeless to carry out, not to mention tax evasion and general all purpose thoroughly selfish behaviour. I don’t know how I can fit it all in; there just isn’t the time when I’ve got all that cash to count.

Genuinely must be grim to see a party you used to have respect for lurch so violently to the right.

I am centre left and think Starmer is taking the Labour Party down the toilet.

 

[BLOCK F]

Genuinely must be grim to see a party you used to have respect for lurch so violently to the right.

I am centre left and think Starmer is taking the Labour Party down the toilet.

Hi Clampy,
Unlike some on here, I am not a political animal, but at 75, I have seen the quality of our main political parties go up and down throughout the years and I have to say that the present shower of a Tory Government take some beating in the shithouse stakes. They really have to go into Opposition for 10 years to regather and come to their senses with a new generation of politicians; whether or not I shall be alive to see it, heaven knows. In the meantime, assuming Starmer forms the next Government, and I’m sure he will, I hope they do a good job for the country. I have to say, I am not sure how it will all turn out, he is a cagey ‘old cove’, and we’ll have to wait and see what he comes up with. Rachel Reeves sounds like a sensible Chancellor in waiting, albeit with a very irritating voice ( bitchy of me!). Holding the views I do, I was terrified of what Corbyn and McDonnell may have done to the country, so I am hoping for a sensible approach from Sir Keir. What particularly bothers you about him?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Rigging it in advance then - ''We're not going to respect the will of the majority if it goes against us."

For rigging it in advance, read probably internationally accepted best practice.

and anyway from what I remember the referendum was advisory rather than binding, so there was no compulsion to accept it anyway, but they did.

 

[Audax]

I have to say, I am not sure how it will all turn out, he is a cagey ‘old cove’, and we’ll have to wait and see what he comes up with. Rachel Reeves sounds like a sensible Chancellor in waiting, albeit with a very irritating voice ( bitchy of me!). Holding the views I do, I was terrified of what Corbyn and McDonnell may have done to the country, so I am hoping for a sensible approach from Sir Keir. What particularly bothers you about him?

Same here, but at the same time I don't think it would have been as bad as what an extra 5 years of Tory rule has achieved.

Starmer is a hard one to read. I think he creates unnecessary problems for himself. Take, for example, his recent handling of the ceasefire vote. He should have just declared it a free vote for Labour MPs. Instead he's now having to deal with a frontbench rebellion. It's not the first time, either. I think in general for uk-inward policy he's doing a good job, and while we don't have all the detail yet it looks to me like he's creating a rather good framework to take into an election next year. It's the peripheral stuff that keeps tripping him up, he keeps managing to create unnecessary squabbles within Labour by trying to whip on issues that he could step away from. His other big issue is that I personally think he'll make a far better PM than opposition leader.

I agree with you that Reeves is showing the signs that she could be a good Chancellor. Quite possibly the best Chancellor in a very long time. And there's others on Starmer's frontbench that also look to have some competence.

 

[BLOCK F]

Same here, but at the same time I don't think it would have been as bad as what an extra 5 years of Tory rule has achieved.

Starmer is a hard one to read. I think he creates unnecessary problems for himself. Take, for example, his recent handling of the ceasefire vote. He should have just declared it a free vote for Labour MPs. Instead he's now having to deal with a frontbench rebellion. It's not the first time, either. I think in general for uk-inward policy he's doing a good job, and while we don't have all the detail yet it looks to me like he's creating a rather good framework to take into an election next year. It's the peripheral stuff that keeps tripping him up, he keeps managing to create unnecessary squabbles within Labour by trying to whip on issues that he could step away from. His other big issue is that I personally think he'll make a far better PM than opposition leader.

I agree with you that Reeves is showing the signs that she could be a good Chancellor. Quite possibly the best Chancellor in a very long time. And there's others on Starmer's frontbench that also look to have some competence.

Well, I wish him all the best. Whatever one’s politics, the job of PM seems to age the encumbents by at least 10 years to our every 1 year! Not surprising really.
The job of uniting the Labour Party is always a tricky one…….centrists versus some headbangers, rather like the Tories. The phrase that is well used about Labour, ‘A party of power or a party of protest.
Besides Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting, I know very little about Starmer”s
frontbenchers, so can’t really comment, although I think Yvette Cooper is a safe pair of hands.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

"Stopping the boats" is something that I think everyone, across the political spectrum, can agree with. No one with a shred of common decency actually wants those people to be getting in those boats and making the dangerous crossing.

Where the debate really lies is in *how* we "stop the boats". And I very much doubt (plenty of polls available that support my view, I believe) that a majority agree that Braverman's Rwanda policy is the right way to do it. It's basically trying to copy the Australian solution, but they've not copied the whole Australian solution. And it's important to remember that the early versions of the Australian solution that most closely resembled the current Rwanda solution did not work. The Australian solution only works because Australia has working treaties with countries-of-origin to monitor for, detect, and intercept boats outside of Australian territorial waters, and for those boats to be returned to the country of origin - and as part of that, the refugees on those boats are made aware of the (key part coming up) legal routes for claiming asylum in Australia from outside Australia.

The Tories a) do not have a working treaty / agreement with France (or other potential points of origin for boats), and b) have closed off legal avenues for claiming asylum from outside the UK. They've created the problem with boats, and the only solution they seem to be interested in is one that is never going to stop the boats because they've not learned the lessons from Australia.




It's not rigging it. It's recognising that very narrow margins do not provide a clear, workable mandate for change of the magnitude that Brexit created, especially when no one at the time of voting knew what specific form Brexit might take. In the form that referendum was presented, it absolutely should have had a higher threshold than 50%. 60% possibly too extreme, but 55% at least would have been justified. Or another avenue that could have been taken would be to copy Australia's approach: require not just a majority of voters nationally, but also a majority of the major devolved regions to vote in favour (NI, Sco, Wales, Eng).



I agree. Especially given the "Leave" option was so open. Personally believe the legal framework should have been along these lines:

1. Keep the question that was asked, leave it open. I don't think changing the question itself was necessary.
2. Require a clear victory: 55% minimum to initiate change (Farage made statements to the effect that a narrow win for Remain shouldn't end the debate, same should have applied in reverse).
3. Should "Leave" achieve that clear victory, stipulate that a "confirmation referendum" should take place once the exact format for Brexit had been agreed.

Part 3 is the clear part. A large part of the official Leave campaign made promises and/or suggestions that were not ultimately followed through. There are likely to have been a lot of people who voted Leave thinking they would get a "soft" Brexit who would have voted Remain if given a straight choice between Remain vs the hard Brexit we've got.

On part 3, what really got me was how any criticism of the leave campaign was Project Fear, while the ridiculous claims by the Leave Campaign were believed by many:
- the £350,000,000 we’re paying to the EU now will build a hospital a week - slight exaggeration, but it was never £350m per week, the Office ofNational Statistics highlighted it, but still Leave had it on that bus.
- people like John Redwood said things like “this will be the easiest trade deal ever to negotiate because we hold-all the good cards. They need us more than we need them. Oh no they didn’t. And why should they give us a good deal. Our hectoring bullying style of negotiating was never going to win the day. All right Brits, feck off then.
- banks would move, factories would close, Europeans living here and contributing so much would feel unloved/unwanted and leave. All this was surely predictable.
- prices would go down - yeah, right.

and anything that went against any of that was project fear………..

 

[nicko31]

Should say here that when I refer to "countries of origin" in my above post, I am not referring to the origin of the people on the boats. I'm referring to the country the boats left from.

Useful reading here:

How Australia wrote the 'stop the boats' playbook

The policy slogan used by Rishi Sunak is the same as that used 10 years ago in Australia.

www.bbc.co.uk

I always thought anyone that made it to Australia to claim asylum should be congratulated.

Making landfall with making it to the nearest settlement ain’t easy.

Calais Dover is a doddle

 

[Zeberdi]

The government CAUSED Brexit and the Liz Truss fiasco

and invented ‘illegal’ immigration

 

[Cheshire Cat]

On part 3, what really got me was how any criticism of the leave campaign was Project Fear, while the ridiculous claims by the Leave Campaign were believed by many:
- the £350,000,000 we’re paying to the EU now will build a hospital a week - slight exaggeration, but it was never £350m per week, the Office ofNational Statistics highlighted it, but still Leave had it on that bus.
- people like John Redwood said things like “this will be the easiest trade deal ever to negotiate because we hold-all the good cards. They need us more than we need them. Oh no they didn’t. And why should they give USA good deal. Our hectoring bullying style of negotiating was never going to win the day. All right Brits, feck off then.
- banks would move, factories would close, Europeans living here and contributing so much would feel unloved/unwanted and leave. All this was surely predictable.
- prices would go down - yeah, right.

and anything that went against any of that was project fear………..

Brexit scares the crap out of me.

 

[GT49er]

"Stopping the boats" is something that I think everyone, across the political spectrum, can agree with. No one with a shred of common decency actually wants those people to be getting in those boats and making the dangerous crossing.

Where the debate really lies is in *how* we "stop the boats". And I very much doubt (plenty of polls available that support my view, I believe) that a majority agree that Braverman's Rwanda policy is the right way to do it. It's basically trying to copy the Australian solution, but they've not copied the whole Australian solution. And it's important to remember that the early versions of the Australian solution that most closely resembled the current Rwanda solution did not work. The Australian solution only works because Australia has working treaties with countries-of-origin to monitor for, detect, and intercept boats outside of Australian territorial waters, and for those boats to be returned to the country of origin - and as part of that, the refugees on those boats are made aware of the (key part coming up) legal routes for claiming asylum in Australia from outside Australia.

The Tories a) do not have a working treaty / agreement with France (or other potential points of origin for boats), and b) have closed off legal avenues for claiming asylum from outside the UK. They've created the problem with boats, and the only solution they seem to be interested in is one that is never going to stop the boats because they've not learned the lessons from Australia.




It's not rigging it. It's recognising that very narrow margins do not provide a clear, workable mandate for change of the magnitude that Brexit created, especially when no one at the time of voting knew what specific form Brexit might take. In the form that referendum was presented, it absolutely should have had a higher threshold than 50%. 60% possibly too extreme, but 55% at least would have been justified. Or another avenue that could have been taken would be to copy Australia's approach: require not just a majority of voters nationally, but also a majority of the major devolved regions to vote in favour (NI, Sco, Wales, Eng).



I agree. Especially given the "Leave" option was so open. Personally believe the legal framework should have been along these lines:

1. Keep the question that was asked, leave it open. I don't think changing the question itself was necessary.
2. Require a clear victory: 55% minimum to initiate change (Farage made statements to the effect that a narrow win for Remain shouldn't end the debate, same should have applied in reverse).
3. Should "Leave" achieve that clear victory, stipulate that a "confirmation referendum" should take place once the exact format for Brexit had been agreed.

Part 3 is the clear part. A large part of the official Leave campaign made promises and/or suggestions that were not ultimately followed through. There are likely to have been a lot of people who voted Leave thinking they would get a "soft" Brexit who would have voted Remain if given a straight choice between Remain vs the hard Brexit we've got.

Pre-salting. Setting the parameters so that whatever happens with the vote, you won't lose, because there'll always be another hoop for those who disagree with you to jump through. That's not democracy. A majority is.

 

[Flagship]

I don't know. What football team do you really support?

The Sniper

 

[Flagship]

I don't know. What football team do you really support?

Sorry. The Snipe, The Fiveways, PPT, Park View, Wilmington, Ladies Mile, Cleveland. I know the Snipe is a Sainsbury's. Wilf the 5 Wayys cat went into my bank.
I'm a big Albion fan.

 

[zefarelly]

On part 3, what really got me was how any criticism of the leave campaign was Project Fear, while the ridiculous claims by the Leave Campaign were believed by many:
- the £350,000,000 we’re paying to the EU now will build a hospital a week - slight exaggeration, but it was never £350m per week, the Office ofNational Statistics highlighted it, but still Leave had it on that bus.
- people like John Redwood said things like “this will be the easiest trade deal ever to negotiate because we hold-all the good cards. They need us more than we need them. Oh no they didn’t. And why should they give us a good deal. Our hectoring bullying style of negotiating was never going to win the day. All right Brits, feck off then.
- banks would move, factories would close, Europeans living here and contributing so much would feel unloved/unwanted and leave. All this was surely predictable.
- prices would go down - yeah, right.

and anything that went against any of that was project fear………..

There's a lot of posts here from reasonable and intelligent people, being polite toward those who LIED . . . There's no beating about the bush about it, they lied, deliberately, and were all betting large sums of money on it. They f***ed us over for generations.

It was a catastrophic shitshow from start to finish from one of the weakest most pathetic PM's ever. The slimey spam c**t shoud have been minced, munched and shat out by a dog 5 years ago.

the rest should be in the towers, , BJ, NF etc. treasonous bastards.

the country I love will never be the same in my lifetime. . . .

If you hadn't noticed, I'm still a bit miffed about it.

 

[Flagship]

With due respect, and credit to the members of your family that have done what they did, it is not about what a family have done or where they have come from, it is about the views of an individual.

I note that you have stated you won't vote for the Tories this time round which suggested you did before. So perhaps you could let us know what motivated you to vote for the Tories in the past?

What sort of request is that? No wonder he's ignored you.