[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[nicko31]

Many are.
And despite the Tory’s wanting people to believe the Dublin agreement was a mere “technicality”, it was in fact a very powerful and important tool to manage immigration. It was sadly largely ignored by the Tory’s.

If someone seriously thinks the absence of any capacity to remove illegal immigrants is not a factor in traffickers targeting the U.K. post Brexit, they haven’t understood the situation.

Indeed the threat was always there and could be used if things got out of control.

 

[rogersix]

Indeed the threat was always there and could be used if things got out of control.

could it be described as a deterent?

 

[The Clamp]

could it be described as a deterent?

It’s certainly less of a deterrent since we threw it in the bin.

 

[jcdenton08]

The only reference to Nazi, is from people criticising Gary Lineker. He didn’t say the word.
His tweet said language dehumanising people is similar to that used in Germany in the 1930s.

That is criticism of words like invaders, hordes, swarms, exaggerations like billions, and even worse, cockroaches.

In fairness I was responding indirectly to several comments immediately above which directly likened it to Nazis. Take issue with them, not me.

 

[Jim in the West]

The boats are coming because we are a soft touch

People who get in those boats are risking their lives. They are crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world in small dinghies, often overcrowded. The water is never warm, even in the summer. In the winter you don't last very long if you're in the sea. Drowning is a horrible, horrible way to die. People don't take all those risks just to get access to slightly higher benefits*. The majority comer because they have a family link. Or they can speak the language. They don't want to live on benefits (and, by the way, we force them to access benefits because we don't allow them to work. In fact they aren't even allowed to study - except for a very few exceptions.

*And actually the benefits often aren't higher.

 

[beorhthelm]

Many are.
And despite the Tory’s wanting people to believe the Dublin agreement was a mere “technicality”, it was in fact a very powerful and important tool to manage immigration. It was sadly largely ignored by the Tory’s.

If someone seriously thinks the absence of any capacity to remove illegal immigrants is not a factor in traffickers targeting the U.K. post Brexit, they haven’t understood the situation.

sure, a migrant is looking up the Dublin III regulations while weighing up how to get out of Syria or Afghanistan. makes as much sense as policy to deport them to Rwanda would deter - they dont even know about this stuff.

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

Lol….sorry Clampie but u know whatever arguments i come up with they wont change your mind….but i really must get back to work..I’ll leave you to all your like minded peeps

oh and dont worry the latest ’scheme’ is being challenged by all those neutral (haha) cival servants ….

I’m sure if your “arguments” are as compelling as you feel then it may change a few minds.
Of course if said arguments have little substance and are easily seen through then they won’t hold and people will disagree.
Of course if you don’t disclose these reasons (arguments) then you can just decide for yourself that others won’t agree.
Doesn’t show a great deal of faith in your convictions.

 

[The Clamp]

This f***ing clown prancing like a tit, celebrating all these so called “new eras” he’s ushering in with his grovelling and bribing. All
Things we had with our membership of the EU. That he’s now having to go begging and throwing money at to have reinstated.

f***ing Tory’s. Plough them into a ditch.

Rishi Sunak defends UK payments for French coastline patrols – politics live

Latest updates: PM is in France for first summit between two nations in five years

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Clamp]

sure, a migrant is looking up the Dublin III regulations while weighing up how to get out of Syria or Afghanistan. makes as much sense as policy to deport them to Rwanda - they dont even know about this stuff.

Traffickers do. As do people that have no legitimate claim to asylum. As well as economic migrants.

They do their research. Genuine asylum seekers don’t. They flee.

And now they might be transported to third world countries before even being heard.

Nice.

 

[Audax]

Walker is right in the above video. Tories are getting away, continually, with saying the refugees are coming here illegally. That they are criminals. That's simply not the case. Everybody has a right to seek asylum, that isn't a crime. It seems mad that it has to be said and them getting away with this kind of language, unchallenged, is very, very dangerous.
Edit: apologies @Berty23 for basically repeating your point a few minutes later

I'm going to repeat it as well. The Rwanda policy has often been compared to the Australian approach to handling asylum seeker arrivals by boat. However, the UK approach announced this week goes well beyond anything Australia is currently doing. There's a good read here: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work...s/asylum-seekers-and-refugees#third_countries - but in particular the first paragraph of Section 7, which states very clearly and unambiguously:

"Seeking asylum in Australia, or elsewhere, is not illegal. In fact, it is a basic human right. All people are entitled to protection of their human rights, including the right to seek asylum, regardless of how or where they arrive in Australia, or in any other country."

From a Human Rights perspective, the word "Australia" in the above is interchangeable with "UK" given the international obligations (under various treaties and conventions etc) that both countries have signed up to.

Given what I linked to is a very long read, there is a passage in there that points to some Aussie law that is a close match to what Braverman and Sunak are now proposing (refusal of the right to apply for asylum if arriving by boat). However, in practice that element of Australian law is not applied - it includes clauses that mean the relevant Minister can waive that part of the law, and there has now for a very long time been a blanket waiver in place and the reality is that Australia's approach to arrivals by boat now is to ensure that boat arrival applications *cannot* be processed faster than non-boat applications.

A key difference here is that Australia does have a process (in fact, it is the preferred method) for applying for asylum from outside the country. An applicant must first apply to the UNHCR for refugee status, and they can then apply for an Australian refugee visa. Unfortunately that process does take time and Australia's problem with arrivals by boat was driven by a perception that it would short cut the process if they were in Australia. Now that it is well known that arriving by boat does not offer a shortcut, the boat "problem" for Australia is vastly diminished.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Lol….sorry Clampie but u know whatever arguments i come up with they wont change your mind….but i really must get back to work..I’ll leave you to all your like minded peeps

oh and dont worry the latest ’scheme’ is being challenged by all those neutral (haha) cival servants ….

Full fact on asylum seekers and any 'benefits'

‘Illegal immigrants’ are not entitled to more benefits than pensioners - Full Fact

False information comparing benefits and other financial support has been circulating for more than a decade.

fullfact.org

 

[The Clamp]

Full fact on asylum seekers and any 'benefits'

‘Illegal immigrants’ are not entitled to more benefits than pensioners - Full Fact

False information comparing benefits and other financial support has been circulating for more than a decade.

fullfact.org

He’s not interested in facts.

 

[The Clamp]

I think Sunak just got taken up the rear.



“UK to fund migrant detention centre in France”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-64914564

 

[keaton]

​

Suella Braverman accused of rule breach over ‘blob of civil servants’ email​

Call for ministerial code inquiry over message blaming civil servants for failure to stop Channel crossings




Suella Braverman has been accused of potentially breaking ministerial rules by questioning the impartiality of public servants over small boat crossings in a Conservative campaign message.
In an email to thousands of Tory supporters, the home secretary blamed “an activist blob of leftwing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour party” for the government’s failure to stop Channel crossings.

There's no point in sacking her again, she'd just reappointed a week later

 

[Audax]

Every chance they always wanted to come to the UK. But the reason they get on those pitiful boats in France is because they want to leave France and come to England.

The reason they get on the boats is because the UK doesn't offer them the chance to claim asylum from outside the country. The do it from France because it's the closest & safest country to go to if your goal is to come to the UK. How they may or may not be treated in France is irrelevant in making that decision to get on the boat: they've already made that decision before they got to France.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think Sunak just got taken up the rear.



“UK to fund migrant detention centre in France”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-64914564

Cooperation and shared umbrella? Bromance?

The Brexiters will be going red in the face.

 

[The Clamp]

Goes to France to “negotiate a way to help each other”

Comes back with a £500,000,000 bill for a detention centre in France.



Priceless.

 

[Audax]

sure, a migrant is looking up the Dublin III regulations while weighing up how to get out of Syria or Afghanistan. makes as much sense as policy to deport them to Rwanda would deter - they dont even know about this stuff.

No, the way it works is that the people smugglers tell them that the current legal framework means that once they're in the UK, they won't be removed. It's not the refugees who do the research and run the smuggling routes. It's the gangs, and the gangs know everything they need to know to convince the refugees that what they are offering is "best".

 

[Baldseagull]

Why not go the whole hog and launch (pun intended) a campaign to keep the boats running?

One of the things that really needs looking at, but keeps being glossed over, is what is it about France that makes it such a hell-hole that people want to leave so badly?

120,000 asylum claims in France last year, 72,000 in the UK. 3/4 of those applying in France will fail on average, and since leaving the EU, anyone that has a failed asylum claim in France, can try again in the UK if they can get here. Whilst we were in the EU, a failed asylum claim in another EU Country would mean that we did not have to consider their asylum claim. 70% of claims are approved in the UK. That will be part of the answer, some will have family in the UK, and some will speak English well but not French.

 

[CheeseRolls]

The sheer desperation and hypocrisy of this argument. I thought it was only woke lefties who wanted to ban everything.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ghtwing-backlash-fears?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Truly the dying days of an appalling government and I have no idea what some of these nutters are going to do, once they can't wield power.