Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Maticmaker said:
Yes, even that is possible, once the issues surrounding immigration are clarified and a proper system in place... the statement presented with the award will read something like .. "In the late 20th and early 21st Century he brought about a popular focus on the subject of immigration in the UK, whilst being misguided in his approach Nigel Farage was nevertheless the man whose involvement became the cataylst for change".
Click to expand...
Its just more hostile environment. You'd need some agreement and consultation from the like of Spain, France, Portugal for it to have any meaningful impact. They'll continue waving those seeking asylum in the UK through, refugees will continue arriving by whatever means are open to them.
The UK breaking long standing international norms just makes you look small time and dysfunctional. A banana republic.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes, even that is possible, once the issues surrounding immigration are clarified and a proper system in place... the statement presented with the award will read something like .. "In the late 20th and early 21st Century he brought about a popular focus on the subject of immigration in the UK, whilst being misguided in his approach Nigel Farage was nevertheless the man whose involvement became the cataylst for change".
Click to expand...

So why do other countries have a proper system and the UK don't?

As for Farage's statement - do you mean the Uk wanted more immigration and useless workers - why didn't the Brexiters say so. They just didn't like Europeans.
 
caid said:
Nope. They can seek asylum whereever they wish.
Click to expand...

Yes if they follow the procedures, but that is not the issue is it?
Arriving illegally in a small boat which is operated by people traffickers is not the way, stowing away on a train or a lorry is not the way either.
Any government has to try to put a stop to these illegal methods, and yes its highly unlikely they ever will stop all illegal routes, but the small boat situation is high visibility with the public and if ever the climate on immigration is to get better in the UK the government has to get on top of this.

In the next fifty years or so gradually there are likely to be millions of people, not just fleeing corrupt or dangerous regimes, but fleeing for their lives because of the ravages of climate change; islands sinking into a sea with increased levels, vast areas currently fertile becoming infertile, areas ravage by fire or floods making habitation impossible. For some it will be temporary need to migrate to a safe haven, for some there will be no going back, especially if water issues remain. If this modern-day exodus is not handled correctly then chaos will reign. To ensure that places like the UK have limitations will have to accepted, but so too will be the need and the understanding and sympathy with the situations millions will find themselves. Emergency systems need to be thought out and worked through, especially by countries in the northern hemisphere. however; first all governments and in particular in the UK have to show they can bring down the illegal operations, especially the high-viz ones. Although it may seem unlikely in the present atmosphere, but putting an end to the small boats route may one day become to be seen as an example of the l'ow-hanging fruit' in terms of illegal people trafficking.
 
Last edited:
Paul the Wolf said:
Probably not. My youngest , Xavier (13), says hi. Born in France , bilingual. Thinks Brexit is moronic , which it is.

Think we have completely different views of things, Matic I mean.
Click to expand...

You both are retirees with too much time. That is why you are at it :p
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes if they follow the procedures, but that is not the issue is it?
Arriving illegally in a small boat which is operated by people traffickers is not the way, stowing away on a train or a lorry is not the way either.
Any government has to try to put a stop to these illegal methods, and yes its highly unlikely they ever will stop all illegal routes, but the small boat situation is high visibility with the public and if ever the climate on immigration is to get better in the UK the government has to get on top of this.

In the next fifty years or so gradually there are likely to be millions of people, not just fleeing corrupt or dangerous regimes, but fleeing for their lives because of the ravages of climate change; islands sinking into a sea with increased levels, vast areas currently fertile becoming infertile, areas ravage by fire or floods making habitation impossible. For some it will be temporary need to migrate to a safe haven, for some there will be no going back, especially if water issues remain. If this modern-day exodus is not handled correctly then chaos will reign. To ensure that places like the UK have limitations will have to accepted, but so too will be the need and the understanding and sympathy with the situations millions will find themselves. Emergency systems need to be thought out and worked through, especially by countries in the northern hemisphere. however; first all governments and in particular in the UK have to show they can bring down the illegal operations, especially the high-viz ones. Although it may seem unlikely in the present atmosphere, but putting an end to the small boats route may one day become to be seen as an example of the l'ow-hanging fruit' in terms of illegal people trafficking.
Click to expand...

AGAIN WITH THE PROCEDURES!!!

We have NO procedures for asylum seekers, unless you’re from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine or Hong Kong.

ALL OTHER ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE NO ‘PROCEDURE’ THAT IS VALIDATED BY IUR GOVERNMENT!!!

And because of that they have no choice but to put their lives in the hands of people traffickers in order to get to the UK irregularly.

They simply cannot ‘circumvent’ procedures or ‘jump the queue’ when there is neither procedure or queue for people coming from ANYWHERE apart from the four places I mentioned above!
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes if they follow the procedures, but that is not the issue is it?
Arriving illegally in a small boat which is operated by people traffickers is not the way, stowing away on a train or a lorry is not the way either.
Any government has to try to put a stop to these illegal methods, and yes its highly unlikely they ever will stop all illegal routes, but the small boat situation is high visibility with the public and if ever the climate on immigration is to get better in the UK the government has to get on top of this.

In the next fifty years or so gradually there are likely to be millions of people, not just fleeing corrupt or dangerous regimes, but fleeing for their lives because of the ravages of climate change; islands sinking into a sea with increased levels, vast areas currently fertile becoming infertile, areas ravage by fire or floods making habitation impossible. For some it will be temporary need to migrate to a safe haven, for some there will be no going back, especially if water issues remain. If this modern-day exodus is not handled correctly then chaos will reign. To ensure that places like the UK have limitations will have to accepted, but so too will be the need and the understanding and sympathy with the situations millions will find themselves. Emergency systems need to be thought out and worked through, especially by countries in the northern hemisphere. however; first all governments and in particular in the UK have to show they can bring down the illegal operations, especially the high-viz ones. Although it may seem unlikely in the present atmosphere, but putting an end to the small boats route may one day become to be seen as an example of the l'ow-hanging fruit' in terms of illegal people trafficking.
Click to expand...
No, they're just allowed apply for asylum where ever they like. Theres no conditionality on it. It wasn't an oversight, its meant to work that way.
The rest is just horse shit. Doesn't bear debating because its that backward and detached from reality. Which is how any vaguely competent, functional government will react to the Conservatives putting it forward.
 
As someone ignorant on the subject, what procedures does an asylum seeker go through to seek refuge in the UK?
 
Tarrou said:
what law are they breaking?
Click to expand...

Asylum seekers? None, since an asylum seeker seek to actively enter the system and gain legal residence. Residence can be denied but at no point an asylum seeker is illegal until his case has been processed and he overstayed when/if his request has been denied.

Illegal migrants(generally economic migrants)? They don't actively enter the system and do not gain or attempt to gain legal residence or have already been denied residency.
 
Maticmaker said:
So, there are 'procedures', for certain areas... the answer in a nutshell then?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it’s down to the gov’t to create them for others.

So for example if you’re a woman in Iran fleeing death squads, there is no procedure, no safe and legal’ route to the UK for them.

The ONLY way they can come to the UK is via a dinghy in the Channel.

But sure, they’re the problem…

I remember when you used to be making arguments about being a frustrated left wing, politically homeless person!
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Yeah, and it’s down to the gov’t to create them for others.

So for example if you’re a woman in Iran fleeing death squads, there is no procedure, no safe and legal’ route to the UK for them.

The ONLY way they can come to the UK is via a dinghy in the Channel.

But sure, they’re the problem…

I remember when you used to be making arguments about being a frustrated left wing, politically homeless person!
Click to expand...

I don't know if you explicitely said it but the UK do not take asylum claims in their embassies, they are not the only country where this applies, the same is true for France. In order to claim asylum you need to be in the UK/France. One thing that I know exist for France and may or may not exist for the UK, is that an asylum seeker can demand a visa for asylum. But either way, an asylum seeker need to get his backside to the country where he seeks asylum, also it's important to remember that asylum seekers aren't an issue for western countries, the vast majority of refugees remains in their region in a neighboring country which is by the way not ideal for the hosting countries.

Wealthy countries should actively help the likes of Turkey, Italy but also Bangladesh and other countries.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't know if you explicitely said it but the UK do not take asylum claims in their embassies, they are not the only country where this applies, the same is true for France. In order to claim asylum you need to be in the UK/France. One thing that I know exist for France and may or may not exist for the UK, is that an asylum seeker can demand a visa for asylum. But either way, an asylum seeker need to get his backside to the country where he seeks asylum, also it's important to remember that asylum seekers aren't an issue for western countries, the vast majority of refugees remains in their region in a neighboring country which is by the way not ideal for the hosting countries.

Wealthy countries should actively help the likes of Turkey, Italy but also Bangladesh and other countries.
Click to expand...

Absolutely with you on that. Even Braverman herself admitted when challenged that an asylum seeker had to get feet on the ground before they can claim. Issue number one I’d have is to create facilities adjacent to embassies to house claimants whilst processing, then provide transport once approved.

I’d also mirror Germany in giving temporary VISAs to allow claimants to work whilst awaiting processing.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I remember when you used to be making arguments about being a frustrated left wing, politically homeless person!
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were old enough to remember that far back.
My frustration with the Labour Party, back then, was they were deviating from what they were set up to do which was represent the UK Working Class. They had been and were being gradually infiltrated by all these 'international socialists' who, among other things, wanted to use the UK working class as a 'hobby horse' for promoting world wide socialism, which incidentally mean't different things to different people and for a while it scared the sh** out of a number of US administrations and agencies.

I have never been 'left wing' as its defined these days

It seems the UK government will only provide the necessary safe routes, for those countries where it deems there are people in substantial difficulties and require asylum. They know we cannot respond to every 'asylum claim'/need and therefore choose those they define as most needing help.
 
Maticmaker said:
I didn't think you were old enough to remember that far back.
My frustration with the Labour Party, back then, was they were deviating from what they were set up to do which was represent the UK Working Class. They had been and were being gradually infiltrated by all these 'international socialists' who, among other things, wanted to use the UK working class as a 'hobby horse' for promoting world wide socialism, which incidentally mean't different things to different people and for a while it scared the sh** out of a number of US administrations and agencies.

I have never been 'left wing' as its defined these days

It seems the UK government will only provide the necessary safe routes, for those countries where it deems there are people in substantial difficulties and require asylum. They know we cannot respond to every 'asylum claim'/need and therefore choose those they define as most needing help.
Click to expand...

That last paragraph, I’m sorry but that’s either naive as f*ck at best or downright delusional!

So you think they just don’t think that the targeted killings in Iran is worth raising a ‘safe & legal route’? Suella Braverman cowering in her office going, “Oh I just wish we had the resources to help these women but we just can’t I’m afraid.”

Do me a favour!
 
Jericholyte2 said:
That last paragraph, I’m sorry but that’s either naive as f*ck at best or downright delusional!

So you think they just don’t think that the targeted killings in Iran is worth raising a ‘safe & legal route’? Suella Braverman cowering in her office going, “Oh I just wish we had the resources to help these women but we just can’t I’m afraid.”

Do me a favour!
Click to expand...

It's neither naivety nor delusion. Those rules have been in place decades before any potential asylum seeker surges, it's not as if the Geneva convention was a brand new international agreement. You are simply witnessing some thorough brainswashing with the idea that first there is too many asylum seekers that travel across continents which is not true since nearly all asylum seekers are in neighboring countries of conflict areas which is why places like Turkey, Jordan and Bangladesh struggle with it. As an example Jordan has more than 700k registered asylum seekers compared to the UK 130k or France 96k, keeping in mind that Jordan is much smaller and far less wealthier. Now for people to understand why they are talking absolute nonsense, Turkey has +3.6m registered refugees, Bangladesh are close to 1m.

Our politicians are full of it, not only they lie about the proportion of refugees that try to come to Europe or the US but they also lie about the actual capabilities that wealthier countries have, all of that is simply due to politicking and avoiding any direct conflicts with xenophobes.
 
Maticmaker said:
As far as I am aware that is the accepted situation, the first safe country they land in is the one to apply for asylum.
Click to expand...
That is not international law. I suggest laying off the Daily Mail or Telegraph.

Have you even thought about the practicalities of this? Millions of people arriving in only 2-3 countries which neghbour a war torn country with refugees leaving. It wouldn't work.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
That is not international law. I suggest laying off the Daily Mail or Telegraph.

Have you even thought about the practicalities of this? Millions of people arriving in only 2-3 countries which neghbour a war torn country with refugees leaving. It wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

It's exactly what happens in practice and it's a terrible situation with hundreds of thousand to millions of people living in terrible conditions and cities unable to cope with it.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
So you think they just don’t think that the targeted killings in Iran is worth raising a ‘safe & legal route’?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
 
Maticmaker said:
It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
Click to expand...

What do you think would happen if every country in the world said “we’re going to help people in x circumstances from these four countries but that is it”?
 
Maticmaker said:
It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
Click to expand...

At this point you’ve gotta ask why you’re not getting across the subject matter.

It feel like you just want to say ‘The UK should be closed and only take Asylum applications from their cherry picked scenarios’.

That’s ok for you to say. But you’ve got to question your place in the world if you think that’s how it should work.
 
Maticmaker said:
It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
Click to expand...
It won't be the UK saving them all will it? You just seem to want the UK to ignore international law.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
At this point you’ve gotta ask why you’re not getting across the subject matter.

It feel like you just want to say ‘The UK should be closed and only take Asylum applications from their cherry picked scenarios’.

That’s ok for you to say. But you’ve got to question your place in the world if you think that’s how it should work.
Click to expand...

The UK is not' 'closed' and never has been, immigrants (including asylum seekers) legal and illegal have been arriving here for centuries and will continue to do so. Nevertheless the UK government has to have a 'blueprint' to work from and yes you could say it is 'cherry picking', it will set up up 'safe asylum 'routes it feels obligated to do so, but also those which it knows it can have some control over.
I have speculated elsewhere that over the next fifty years, more and more people will seek to migrate not just because of fear of persecution or indeed just seeking a better life, it will be because climate change will reek havoc with their environment on a scale we can only speculate about at this time.
Countries especially in the northern hemisphere will come to view migration, and its potentially disruptive effects, on a level currently not seen at this time except perhaps when the German Chancellor said Germany would welcome all comers.

I don't doubt the UK's place in the world is changing. Brexit apart the likelihood that over the next decade or two, Ireland will become a completely united entity, Scotland may yet dissolve its Union with England, etc. all will play a part going forward. Immigration that is controlled by the UK government is essential, because despite the roll back of 'freedom of movement' since leaving the EU, the UK will need a steady stream of immigrants, not just to take up jobs, but to keep the population numbers stable, over the next two decades at least.

However the UK population by and large doesn't accept this, perhaps because of right wing press etc., but either way unless the Government can show it can control the 'high vis' illegal entry methods (NB 'methods' are illegal not the people) like the small boats, then the populace never will and who knows what may result?

Because the UK is an island, with how many miles of coast line? It will always be difficult to stop illegal landings, not just across the channel. If the situation continues to grow as it has over the past few years, then maybe the government will invest in super fast marine patrol vessels, for the Border patrols and therefore bring back welcome ship building skills to former dockyards.... trouble is who/what labour force will be available and skilled enough to build these vessels?
 
Maticmaker said:
The UK is not' 'closed' and never has been, immigrants (including asylum seekers) legal and illegal have been arriving here for centuries and will continue to do so. Nevertheless the UK government has to have a 'blueprint' to work from and yes you could say it is 'cherry picking', it will set up up 'safe asylum 'routes it feels obligated to do so, but also those which it knows it can have some control over.
I have speculated elsewhere that over the next fifty years, more and more people will seek to migrate not just because of fear of persecution or indeed just seeking a better life, it will be because climate change will reek havoc with their environment on a scale we can only speculate about at this time.
Countries especially in the northern hemisphere will come to view migration, and its potentially disruptive effects, on a level currently not seen at this time except perhaps when the German Chancellor said Germany would welcome all comers.

I don't doubt the UK's place in the world is changing. Brexit apart the likelihood that over the next decade or two, Ireland will become a completely united entity, Scotland may yet dissolve its Union with England, etc. all will play a part going forward. Immigration that is controlled by the UK government is essential, because despite the roll back of 'freedom of movement' since leaving the EU, the UK will need a steady stream of immigrants, not just to take up jobs, but to keep the population numbers stable, over the next two decades at least.

However the UK population by and large doesn't accept this, perhaps because of right wing press etc., but either way unless the Government can show it can control the 'high vis' illegal entry methods (NB 'methods' are illegal not the people) like the small boats, then the populace never will and who knows what may result?

Because the UK is an island, with how many miles of coast line? It will always be difficult to stop illegal landings, not just across the channel. If the situation continues to grow as it has over the past few years, then maybe the government will invest in super fast marine patrol vessels, for the Border patrols and therefore bring back welcome ship building skills to former dockyards.... trouble is who/what labour force will be available and skilled enough to build these vessels?
Click to expand...

To me this is the crux of the issue with these convesations. At which point immigration to the UK has been controlled by anyone else than the UK?
 
JPRouve said:
To me this is the crux of the issue with these convesations. At which point immigration to the UK has been controlled by anyone else than the UK?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, I agree, in theory the UK has always had 'control' over immigration (every government has), even within the EU, but successive governments of every hue have failed to implement or use the levels/levers of control that are required to exercise anything like effective control. This was either because it cost too much; or it would at times to have worked effectively have had to be fairly brutal in its application and 'humanitarian' considerations, especially in an espoused 'Liberal democracy' would not allow such brutality; or until relative recently because it seemed the majority of the populace didn't care too much, one way or the other and the UK had built something of a reputation of being ready to help out with emergency asylum situations, e.g. when East Asians were forcibly removed from Kenya, etc.
However, it is assumed the main reason that successive governments did not implement stricter overall immigration controls was it was all too much trouble and asylum seekers only really popped up now and again in large swathes, although it was known others, not the true asylum seekers, but those just desperate to get in, did find their way in although mainly illegally.

Then of course the 'freedom of movement' in the EU set off a 'number of hares' running, that such as Farage moved in on, almost immediately.
None of the EU citizens (as far as I am aware) ever came to the UK to seek asylum, but it all got lumped together, including loss of jobs and over stretched hospitals and shortage of housing, etc. Anyone watching us from a distance would have seen Brexit coming, but David Cameron, buoyed by first his Election victory(after the coalition) and a couple of years later seeing off a strong Nationalist challenge in INDY1, in Scotland that also decimated (and then obliterated) Labour in Scotland, he decided to go for the hat-trick and put his Conservative 'anti EU brigade' to the sword once and for all and he issued the sloppiest attempt at a operating a fundamental referendum that one could have expected.... one he was oh so confident of winning. The rest as they say is history.

As a result, months, years and more yet still to come will follow of chaos over immigration/asylum etc. with the true picture getting blurred over and over again, because after twelve years of power the Tory's now know their only hope of a) winning and/or b) avoiding a drubbing at the next Election, is to 'go big' on immigration (well actually asylum seekers, really).
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
Yes it is, I agree, in theory the UK has always had 'control' over immigration (every government has), even within the EU, but successive governments of every hue have failed to implement or use the levels/levers of control that are required to exercise anything like effective control. This was either because it cost too much; or it would at times to have worked effectively have had to be fairly brutal in its application and 'humanitarian' considerations, especially in an espoused 'Liberal democracy' would not allow such brutality; or until relative recently because it seemed the majority of the populace didn't care too much, one way or the other and the UK had built something of a reputation of being ready to help out with emergency asylum situations, e.g. when East Asians were forcibly removed from Kenya, etc.
However, it is assumed the main reason that successive governments did not implement stricter overall immigration controls was it was all too much trouble and asylum seekers only really popped up now and again in large swathes, although it was known others, not the true asylum seekers, but those just desperate to get in, did find their way in although mainly illegally.

Then of course the 'freedom of movement' in the EU set off a 'number of hares' running, that such as Farage moved in on, almost immediately.
None of the EU citizens (as far as I am aware) ever came to the UK to seek asylum, but it all got lumped together, including loss of jobs and over stretched hospitals and shortage of housing, etc.Anyone watching us from a distance would have seen Brexit coming, but David Cameron, buoyed by first his Election victory(after the coalition) and a couple of years later seeing off a strong Nationalist challenge in INDY1, in Scotland that also decimated (and then obliterated) Labour in Scotland, he decided to go for the hat-trick and put his Conservative 'anti EU brigade' to the sword once and for all and he issued the sloppiest attempt at a operating a fundamental referendum that one could have expected.... one he was oh so confident of winning. The rest as they say is history.

As a result, months, years and more yet still to come will follow of chaos over immigration/asylum etc. with the true picture getting blurred over and over again, because after twelve years of power the Tory's now know their only hope of a) winning and/or b) avoiding a drubbing at the next Election, is to 'go big' on immigration (well actually asylum seekers, really).
Click to expand...

Why did you wrote a wall of words to answer a question that required one sentence? Also there is no large swathes of asylum seekers going to the UK or any western Europe country, as I already said refugees almost exclusively move to neighboring countries or other regions within the same country. And it's particularly ridiculous to link it to Brexit or any immigration issue, when Brexit was championed the amount of asylum request to the UK were under 20k.

Also freedom of movement isn't an issue either there isn't actually that many movement within the EU and that movement is only allowed for 3 months beyond that you have to register for long term residency which is determined by the host country rules.
 
Maticmaker said:
The UK is not' 'closed' and never has been, immigrants (including asylum seekers) legal and illegal have been arriving here for centuries and will continue to do so. Nevertheless the UK government has to have a 'blueprint' to work from and yes you could say it is 'cherry picking', it will set up up 'safe asylum 'routes it feels obligated to do so, but also those which it knows it can have some control over.
I have speculated elsewhere that over the next fifty years, more and more people will seek to migrate not just because of fear of persecution or indeed just seeking a better life, it will be because climate change will reek havoc with their environment on a scale we can only speculate about at this time.
Countries especially in the northern hemisphere will come to view migration, and its potentially disruptive effects, on a level currently not seen at this time except perhaps when the German Chancellor said Germany would welcome all comers.

I don't doubt the UK's place in the world is changing. Brexit apart the likelihood that over the next decade or two, Ireland will become a completely united entity, Scotland may yet dissolve its Union with England, etc. all will play a part going forward. Immigration that is controlled by the UK government is essential, because despite the roll back of 'freedom of movement' since leaving the EU, the UK will need a steady stream of immigrants, not just to take up jobs, but to keep the population numbers stable, over the next two decades at least.

However the UK population by and large doesn't accept this, perhaps because of right wing press etc., but either way unless the Government can show it can control the 'high vis' illegal entry methods (NB 'methods' are illegal not the people) like the small boats, then the populace never will and who knows what may result?

Because the UK is an island, with how many miles of coast line? It will always be difficult to stop illegal landings, not just across the channel. If the situation continues to grow as it has over the past few years, then maybe the government will invest in super fast marine patrol vessels, for the Border patrols and therefore bring back welcome ship building skills to former dockyards.... trouble is who/what labour force will be available and skilled enough to build these vessels?
Click to expand...

Again, you’re either wilfully ingorant, or you’re a bad person. The numbers are small. The problem is admin. That’s it.

This country has zero problems resulting from people arriving in dinghies. None.

What it has, is a bewilderingly large number of people that practise sword swallowing with the right wing media’s insatiable cock, and your throat sounds full if I’m honest.

Because me? I’d open up legal avenues, let asylum seekers work while waiting on an application, and really struggle with my psyche over deporting the 1 in 5 people that were unsuccessful. But I could respect a system and be on with it.

This country has gone limp in the last 15 years. People need help. Help them. When did we all get so small? It’s gross. The loudest people seem determined to show the world the worst of us. I still believe we have more nice people than cnuts.

Acknowledging your other mental aside about climate… yeah. You’re right. The world will see necessity trump desire with regards to immigration in future. Why not have a big idea. Enrol asylum seekers into Carbon Neutralisation efforts. Let these people learn a trade like solar installation or insulation. Create apprenticeships for them. We sure as Fcuk don’t have enough labour in that space. Create a subsidy scheme that rewards SME’s in that space to take on labour, upskill, and provide these people transferable qualifications to return to their own countries with (as most seem to want to)… Just be better. It’s so easy. The bar is on the floor right now. Everyone seems to think there are dinghies full of illiterate pirates coming here with kilos of coke to sell. Most are better educated than the average poor UK citizen.

I’m not advocating for no quota numbers. Just make a plan. Follow that plan. Evolve it. It’s easy.

Or… gobble on Murdochs pork sword and stay in the circus.
 
JPRouve said:
Why did you wrote a wall of words to answer a question that required one sentence? Also there is no large swathes of asylum seekers going to the UK or any western Europe country, as I already said refugees almost exclusively move to neighboring countries or other regions within the same country. And it's particularly ridiculous to link it to Brexit or any immigration issue, when Brexit was championed the amount of asylum request to the UK were under 20k.

Also freedom of movement isn't an issue either there isn't actually that many movement within the EU and that movement is only allowed for 3 months beyond that you have to register for long term residency which is determined by the host country rules.
Click to expand...

Because for your idea of a response, that would have been good enough, for my idea of a response it needed more, please don't ask me to answer a question, posed in order to misrepresent what I am saying.

I acknowledge that, but in the context of how the UK public perceive it, there is!

You are joking of course? Brexit in large parts of the UK was all about the perception of immigration (including asylum) as perceived by the UK public. It wasn't true, but the 'freedom of movement' element was (in the minds of many) what caused the issue to 'balloon' from job, housing, etc.to immigration and asylum although neither were part of the EU's idea of movement over borders.

We are all aware that many issues, especially surrounding immigration/asylum got rolled into one by such as Farage, but the remainers stubbornly refused to get into a debate, they continually pointed at economic issues, when a large proportion of the UK public were talking about other things. There was a lot of 'talking to the back of peoples head's,' and it seems it still hasn't stopped yet!
 
Maticmaker said:
Because for your idea of a response, that would have been good enough, for my idea of a response it needed more, please don't ask me to answer a question, posed in order to misrepresent what I am saying.

I acknowledge that, but in the context of how the UK public perceive it, there is!

You are joking of course? Brexit in large parts of the UK was all about the perception of immigration (including asylum) as perceived by the UK public. It wasn't true, but the 'freedom of movement' element was (in the minds of many) what caused the issue to 'balloon' from job, housing, etc.to immigration and asylum although neither were part of the EU's idea of movement over borders.

We are all aware that many issues, especially surrounding immigration/asylum got rolled into one by such as Farage, but the remainers stubbornly refused to get into a debate, they continually pointed at economic issues, when a large proportion of the UK public were talking about other things. There was a lot of 'talking to the back of peoples head's,' and it seems it still hasn't stopped yet!
Click to expand...

Your idea of a response seems to involved having no clue about the topic at hand and writing lots of words that have either no meaning or are based on fantasy.

And were weren't talking about perceptions, you made claims that are untrue and are now playing games and trying to distance yourself from them. You have spent several days trying to justify your own nonsense not the "UK public perception".
 
Maticmaker said:
You are joking of course? Brexit in large parts of the UK was all about the perception of immigration (including asylum) as perceived by the UK public. It wasn't true, but the 'freedom of movement' element was (in the minds of many) what caused the issue to 'balloon' from job, housing, etc.to immigration and asylum although neither were part of the EU's idea of movement over borders.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to get involved with the whole thing but there is a lot of truth in this part, I personally know a number of people who voted for Brexit mainly on this basis and there'll be a lot more

It's clearly one of the reasons why the Tories won a lot of seats in the last GE that they'd never have normally come close to winning, and because the perception is wrong they'll lose them all at the next one as well
 
JPRouve said:
Your idea of a response seems to involved having no clue about the topic at hand and writing lots of words that have either no meaning or are based on fantasy.

And were weren't talking about perceptions, you made claims that are untrue and are now playing games and trying to distance yourself from them. You have spent several days trying to justify your own nonsense not the "UK public perception".
Click to expand...

I am afraid that applies to you not me. I have consistently made the point about how in my life time UK governments have approached the subject of immigration and in particular asylum, how this has impacted on at least three or maybe four generations of UK populace, and how until Brexit no one really talked about immigration or asylum, then when they did with help from Farage and Co....most got it wrong.

You may not have been talking about perceptions and lack of understanding, but I was, I have made no claims and I am not playing games, I am simple giving my thoughts, perceptions if you insist, and why I think the way I do.
 
Maticmaker said:
You really expect me to respond to this?
Click to expand...

No. I don’t. I don’t care. But increasingly it’s only those two options left. You’re going against all of the data and parroting right wing media narratives.

If you believe that the UK should cherry pick it’s asylum routes and ‘only get the best ones’… yeah I’ll label that a truly awful character trait.

A country is admirable by taking on tricky topics and problems and trusting the populace to make good of it.

The UK both-sides everything. There’s no room for that anymore. There’s common sense and decency on one side of the argument, and weak, small minded and just plain nasty in the other tent. Everything you’re writing suggests you’re justifying being in the latter tent. I honestly don’t know why. It’s full of cnuts.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
If you believe that the UK should cherry pick it’s asylum routes and ‘only get the best ones’… yeah I’ll label that a truly awful character trait.
Click to expand...

I said that was a fair assumption/description that someone else had made. That Governments make choices and don't always pick the best ones.

UnrelatedPsuedo said:
The UK both-sides everything.
Click to expand...

Indeed ! Compromise... a good old-fashioned solution


UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I honestly don’t know why. It’s full of cnuts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it takes one to know one? Very sad we have gotten down to this level...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.