advertisement


United States of Europe??

A stronger, more unified EU equals a more marginalised UK.
OK, perhaps, even though we're told Global Britain is going to thrive with markets in Asia, the Anglosphere and elsewhere. On the other hand, a stronger, more unified EU could be a bigger, better export market for Britain. I'm pretty sure EEA members like Norway or Switzerland don't view it in such zero-sum terms.
 
The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Once here, our immigration laws and the Human Rights Act would make it effectively impossible to remove failed asylum applicants, as indeed it already does. It would act as an enormous flashing green light, our system would be overwhelmed, and the security connotations are unthinkable. No government would survive instigating such lunacy.

We've already been here today. It doesn't take long for these threads to start going around in circles.
Not ridiculous at all. You objections are ridiculous. If “our system would be overwhelmed” as you claim, then the solution is to resource our system so that it is not overwhelmed. Funding the system is not an issue, so the fact that it is under resourced to the point that it is vulnerable to increased demand, is a political choice, not a shortage of funds.

You talk of security connotations, but what security connotations? Are asylum seekers terrorists? If so, then an effective, properly funded ‘system’ should find them out.
 
The troll comment appears yet again. Pass what on and to whom?

Which bit of ‘we should take our share’ don’t you understand?

Where did I say anything that makes you think I ‘want the boats turned around’? Show the posts rather than your continued pathetic misrepresentation. Why are you making out I have an opinion on this I do not have? Do you repeatedly misrepresent people like this face to face? You’re really pathetic.

Nobody is forcing you to engage and yes malignant troll is exactly what you are.
 
KS, you must live on fantasy Island, not the UK. Your proposal would bring millions of people to this country in an instant, and it would be a rolling instant. There are no resources that could deal with the effect of what you propose, and the entire country would become a shanty town, and a lawless and broke one to boot.

Furthermore, I should mention as a mere aside that the UK voter has made it repeatedly clear that he and she requires the government to regain control of our borders, not throw the bloody things wide open.
 
KS, you must live on fantasy Island, not the UK. Your proposal would bring millions of people to this country in an instant, and it would be a rolling instant. There are no resources that could deal with the effect of what you propose, and the entire country would become a shanty town, and a lawless and broke one to boot.

Furthermore, I should mention as a mere aside that the UK voter has made it repeatedly clear that he and she requires the government to regain control of our borders, not throw the bloody things wide open.
I see your straw man is called Nigel. Normally you’re better at keeping it out of sight EV.



8hZNpw6.jpg
 
KS, you must live on fantasy Island, not the UK. Your proposal would bring millions of people to this country in an instant, and it would be a rolling instant. There are no resources that could deal with the effect of what you propose, and the entire country would become a shanty town, and a lawless and broke one to boot.

Furthermore, I should mention as a mere aside that the UK voter has made it repeatedly clear that he and she requires the government to regain control of our borders, not throw the bloody things wide open.
I haven’t made a proposal, just questioned your ‘ridiculous’ jibe that our asylum system would be overwhelmed. The underfunding of our asylum and other systems is a political choice, not a financial necessity.

Furthermore, your own assertions are just that, assertions, and what’s more assertions based on your own fantasy. All I have suggested is that we allow asylum seekers to seek asylum and process them in an efficient and fair manner, the same manner that applies to richer seekers of asylum and immigration. Another one of your own fantasies seems to assume that asylum seekers are lawless and ignores the fact that this country cannot go broke.

Finally, this country did not vote to close our borders, half voted against it. And if you did support closing our borders to crossing the channel in a safe and legal manner, you cannot pretend sympathy for those forced into crossing the channel by other means. If you have voted for a ‘f*ck ‘em’ attitude to asylum seekers (and the other half of voters), you can’t pretend sympathy when they get f*cked.
 
Nobody is forcing you to engage and yes malignant troll is exactly what you are.
I notice you again have nothing to support yet another personal attack.

Nobody is forcing you to misrepresent people and to behave like a snide coward.

Moving on ...

I read this today.
Last year, Germany had the highest number of asylum applicants in the EU (122,015 applicants), while France had 93,475 applicants.

In the same period the UK received the fifth largest number of applicants (36,041) when compared with countries in the EU (around 7% of the total). This represents the 17th largest intake when measured per head of population, according to UN Refugee Agency.
Source: BBC

I’m not sure of the absolute relevance of the applications figures above, what is vitally important is how many of those applications were successful, how these people are settled in their new country and what happens with the failed applications.

Q. For each country, how many of those applications were successful?
Q. What is the govt policy in each country for failed applications?

In general,
Q. How many successful asylum applications is a fair share for each European country?
Q. How is that figure determined?
Q. In the UK, from our fair share, what percentage are settled across various regions of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland?

No single country can take everyone, all countries need to take a fair share.

Can anyone sane explain how that is a ‘malignant troll’ pov?

As it is a separate issue...
Q. What should be done about illegal immigration in general and specifically those travelling through numerous countries to get to the UK?
 
I haven’t made a proposal, just questioned your ‘ridiculous’ jibe that our asylum system would be overwhelmed. The underfunding of our asylum and other systems is a political choice, not a financial necessity.

Furthermore, your own assertions are just that, assertions, and what’s more assertions based on your own fantasy. All I have suggested is that we allow asylum seekers to seek asylum and process them in an efficient and fair manner, the same manner that applies to richer seekers of asylum and immigration. Another one of your own fantasies seems to assume that asylum seekers are lawless and ignores the fact that this country cannot go broke.

Finally, this country did not vote to close our borders, half voted against it. And if you did support closing our borders to crossing the channel in a safe and legal manner, you cannot pretend sympathy for those forced into crossing the channel by other means. If you have voted for a ‘f*ck ‘em’ attitude to asylum seekers (and the other half of voters), you can’t pretend sympathy when they get f*cked.

Just one point, I don't assume that all asylum seekers are lawless at all, but it's also hard to deny the reality that, in facilitating people smugglers by buying their services, the channel crossers are involved in an activity that is illegal. That small point aside, OK, no, you're right. I don't want to see people in rubber boats in the Channel.

I would also add that this issue long predates Brexit, and in fact in terms of numbers peaked 15 years before the Brexit referendum. It has merely been driven to the point of dinghies by the effectiveness of the UK's border in Calais, facilitated entirely with the agreement of the French government, which, were it to be suspended, would automatically place the border back in Dover, and your solution would become unavoidable reality.

I think that if your proposal is to work, it would have to be accompanied by a complete overhaul of the Immigration and Asylum acts, not only to function far more quickly and efficiently, but to ensure that there is a robust system in place to deport failed asylum seekers immediately upon the result of appeal. I regret to say that the issue of the Human Rights Act/ECHR would probably have to be addressed too, as it has been clear for many years that the system we have now is very easy for failed asylum seekers to play, and that there is an entire industry devoted to helping them do so.

Although they have their own issues (most particularly with people who are deported simply returning and going through the entire process again), Germany seems to be far more effective at actually deporting failed asylum seekers, as I believe does France, and they do so within ECHR.

This is not uniquely a British problem, and is one that can really only be solved by international cooperation, if at all. I don't doubt that France is frustrated that Schengen permits migrants to transit into its soil en-route to their intended destinations, and its police forces periodically go to some lengths to vent that frustration on the migrants themselves, presumably under orders. The EU has been indecisive and ineffective. However, the bribes that it pays Erdogan are holding 3.7 million refugees in Turkey. Should Erdogan choose to show the EU the finger, which well he might, your solution is certainly going to be put to the test. As it stands the policy is already empowering thugs such as Lukashenko and Putin.

Anyway, as regards public opinion, I think you might be a tad optimistic. I'm happy for you to put your theory to the test, but forgive me if I don't join you on the campaign trail. I've chased enough white elephants already, and I'm running out of time and energy.
 
I notice you again have nothing to support yet another personal attack.

Oh really, I'm not getting into providing your research for you. The original response to your talking the Government's line that France should solve the channel access is getting lost by your attempts to obfuscate further. But if you think people here are in any doubt about your trolling I can help you with that. Anyone debating with you is met with someone totally uninterested in anything other than disrupting for amusement.

The MO includes,

- dipping into a discussions between others purely to provoke and goad.

- requests for information or links that have no intention of reading, let alone understanding.

- debate that is littered with self contradiction and evasion.

It is relentless - you will twist everything to the extent that you hope people lose their bearings and forget what the original point was. After which, you will run various accusations from telling people they are confused, or taking you for someone else, or making stuff up etc. When you inevitably get caught out, it’s always other people who are 'bullying' you.

In a thread supposedly about the benefits of Brexit, ho hum, your reluctance to declare how you voted on the subject of the thread, is a blatant attempt to play both ends depending on who you are trolling at the time and take no responsibility.

In other threads we find you masqureading as an alleged Labour voter and employing similar tactics to provoke people. Not Tories who you spend a lot of time siding with, but other voters for the same party!

In short, the very essence of trolling.
 
As we have an aging population, I suggest not only can we accept more, we should accept more. That's before we discuss the moral issues.

As I understand it the net migration figures are effectively negative as more working age people with high-value skills leave the UK. The trajectory is terrifying; an increasingly isolated, irrelevant and marginalised nation with an ever-ageing population it can’t support due to a declining economy. As ever Brexit is gonna Brexit.
 
Oh really, I'm not getting into providing your research for you. The original response to your talking the Government's line that France should solve the channel access is getting lost by your attempts to obfuscate further. But if you think people here are in any doubt about your trolling I can help you with that. Anyone debating with you is met with someone totally uninterested in anything other than disrupting for amusement.

The MO includes,

- dipping into a discussions between others purely to provoke and goad.

- requests for information or links that have no intention of reading, let alone understanding.

- debate that is littered with self contradiction and evasion.

it is relentless - you will twist everything to the extent that you hope people lose their bearings and forget what the original point was. After which, you will run various accusations from telling people they are confused, or taking you for someone else, or making stuff up etc. When you inevitably get caught out, it’s always other people who are 'bullying' you.

In a thread supposedly about the benefits of Brexit, ho hum, your reluctance to declare how you voted on the subject of the thread, is a blatant attempt to play both ends depending on who you are trolling at the time and take no responsibility.

In other threads we find you masqureading as an alleged Labour voter and employing similar tactics to provoke people. Not Tories who you spend a lot of time siding with, but other voters for the same party!

In short, the very essence of trolling.
He would troll the hair on a barber’s floor. The technique used on his last response was to copy and paste new material from elsewhere, say he agrees with it then asks ‘how is that trolling?’. It’s the same game endlessly played with multiple people.
 
Net migration for 2020 was 12% of what it was at its peak (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...almigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2020). I think we could accept quite a few more immigrants without problems.

As we have an aging population, I suggest not only can we accept more, we should accept more. That's before we discuss the moral issues.

That's entirely something for government policy and democratic consent for that policy. If there is a case for immigration (there is) then the parties campaigning for government should explain their reasoning for that immigration, an informed discussion be allowed to take place, consent be given at the ballot box, and the policy be carried out.

The government's duty to protect our borders is a different issue.
 
That's entirely something for government policy and democratic consent for that policy. If there is a case for immigration (there is) then the parties campaigning for government should explain their reasoning for that immigration, an informed discussion be allowed to take place, consent be given at the ballot box, and the policy be carried out.

But are you not firmly on the side of a project and government that did everything possible to prevent such discussion and fan the flames of ignorance for their own ends?
 
Just one point, I don't assume that all asylum seekers are lawless at all, but it's also hard to deny the reality that, in facilitating people smugglers by buying their services, the channel crossers are involved in an activity that is illegal. That small point aside, OK, no, you're right. I don't want to see people in rubber boats in the Channel.

I would also add that this issue long predates Brexit, and in fact in terms of numbers peaked 15 years before the Brexit referendum. It has merely been driven to the point of dinghies by the effectiveness of the UK's border in Calais, facilitated entirely with the agreement of the French government, which, were it to be suspended, would automatically place the border back in Dover, and your solution would become unavoidable reality.

I think that if your proposal is to work, it would have to be accompanied by a complete overhaul of the Immigration and Asylum acts, not only to function far more quickly and efficiently, but to ensure that there is a robust system in place to deport failed asylum seekers immediately upon the result of appeal. I regret to say that the issue of the Human Rights Act/ECHR would probably have to be addressed too, as it has been clear for many years that the system we have now is very easy for failed asylum seekers to play, and that there is an entire industry devoted to helping them do so.

Although they have their own issues (most particularly with people who are deported simply returning and going through the entire process again), Germany seems to be far more effective at actually deporting failed asylum seekers, as I believe does France, and they do so within ECHR.

This is not uniquely a British problem, and is one that can really only be solved by international cooperation, if at all. I don't doubt that France is frustrated that Schengen permits migrants to transit into its soil en-route to their intended destinations, and its police forces periodically go to some lengths to vent that frustration on the migrants themselves, presumably under orders. The EU has been indecisive and ineffective. However, the bribes that it pays Erdogan are holding 3.7 million refugees in Turkey. Should Erdogan choose to show the EU the finger, which well he might, your solution is certainly going to be put to the test. As it stands the policy is already empowering thugs such as Lukashenko and Putin.

Anyway, as regards public opinion, I think you might be a tad optimistic. I'm happy for you to put your theory to the test, but forgive me if I don't join you on the campaign trail. I've chased enough white elephants already, and I'm running out of time and energy.
Happy to see that my proposals, such as they are, have been elevated from ‘ridiculous fantasy’ to actually possible. Thank you.

However, diluting the Human Rights act to facilitate change is not the way to go. Even if largely ignored by our government that denies basic human rights in so many areas, weakening the HRA further will only serve to further weaken such protections as basic human rights have now.

If you mean that the protocol that asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first country they enter, then yes, that needs to be changed. But, that protocol is part of a European protocol, and as we have now left the EU we do not need to change anything except our hostile environment and attitude towards brown people.
 
Oh really, I'm not getting into providing your research for you. The original response to your talking the Government's line that France should solve the channel access is getting lost by your attempts to obfuscate further. But if you think people here are in any doubt about your trolling I can help you with that. Anyone debating with you is met with someone totally uninterested in anything other than disrupting for amusement.

The MO includes,

- dipping into a discussions between others purely to provoke and goad.

- requests for information or links that have no intention of reading, let alone understanding.

- debate that is littered with self contradiction and evasion.

It is relentless - you will twist everything to the extent that you hope people lose their bearings and forget what the original point was. After which, you will run various accusations from telling people they are confused, or taking you for someone else, or making stuff up etc. When you inevitably get caught out, it’s always other people who are 'bullying' you.

In a thread supposedly about the benefits of Brexit, ho hum, your reluctance to declare how you voted on the subject of the thread, is a blatant attempt to play both ends depending on who you are trolling at the time and take no responsibility.

In other threads we find you masqureading as an alleged Labour voter and employing similar tactics to provoke people. Not Tories who you spend a lot of time siding with, but other voters for the same party!

In short, the very essence of trolling.
LOL. Another cowardly, personal post. From the start it is nonsense, eg I never said France should solve the problem. You made that up but that’s what you do.

Your problem is obvious, you mention the brexit thread where you demand others conform with your relentless, infantile whinging. and I don’t do that. You said earlier you would stop your lies and misrepresentation if I ‘declared my position’. I did so, yet here you are again. Obviously, you aren’t a person of your word, rather like those you criticise.

Any chance of you staying on topic and answering even one of the questions I asked? These are the issues.
 
The government's duty to protect our borders is a different issue.

It is.

Apologies if I misunderstand your post, but I don't consider a few tens of thousands of desparate people who want to come and make a life in the UK (and contribute to its economy and wellbeing) a threat that we need protecting from. Are you saying they are?
 
LOL. Another cowardly, personal post. From the start it is nonsense, eg I never said France should solve the problem. You made that up but that’s what you do.

You couldn't make it up...except you did - again.


Yes, as long as they are out of France it’s a success for the French. They could always have a go at stopping these desperate people attempting such a dangerous voyage to horrible England, but of course, that means they would still be in France and that can’t be right.
 


advertisement


Back
Top