Westminster Politics

Do you? I didn't say that in the slightest as far as i can tell.

I honestly couldn't give a single shit why this small minority of asylum seekers don't stay in France, there's much more important concerns and you'd have to have good justification to try it. Why parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel is a very good question but the answer to that is surely because the UK makes it necessary. Yet that question is only asked with the intent to attack the character of asylum seekers isn't it?
Exactly my point.

It seems people are quite easily influenced to believe far right propaganda. The fact that 4000 people (in a country of 66 million people) have come in on dinghys is annoying some UK citizens more than the UKs high corona death toll of 46000 or dodgy contracts issued to Tory donors worth £100s of millions of tax payers money.

Some people need to get their fecking priorities in order.
 
Exactly my point.

It seems people are quite easily influenced to believe far right propaganda. The fact that 4000 people (in a country of 70 million) have come in on dinghys is annoying some UK citizens more than the UKs high corona death toll or dodgy contracts issued to Tory donors worth 100s of millions of tax payers money.

This is the optimistic view.

The pessimistic take is that our media propagates these narratives because that's what people want to see/hear.

It's a bit of both.
 
I just dont think the situation in syria is comparable to the current situation in france... do you?

The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK
 
I just dont think the situation in syria is comparable to the current situation in france... do you?

Until / unless the UK allows people to apply for asylum without arriving on our shores, this amounts to saying we shouldn't take any refugees. They will inevitably pass through a safe country to get here.
 
This is the optimistic view.

The pessimistic take is that our media propagates these narratives because that's what people want to see/hear.

It's a bit of both.
Oh its definitely both.

It also suits the government to point the finger at asylum seekers to blame them for government failings. Distracts from their inept handling of coronavirus, the economy (we have the biggest shrink of all G7 countries) and the biggest recession for decades.
 
The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK
Right so going back to the original point
Somebody said people only put their kids on boats when the water is safer than the land

I think we both agree that is not the case here then and fleeing a war zone by boat on a dangerous route is not the same thing as leaving france for the uk?

Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.
 
Last edited:
The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK

In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.
 
Until / unless the UK allows people to apply for asylum without arriving on our shores, this amounts to saying we shouldn't take any refugees. They will inevitably pass through a safe country to get here.
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone

Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.
 
Last edited:
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone

Under the Geneva Convention asylum seekers are not obligated to seek asylum in the first "safe" nation they arrive in, they have the choice.
 
Under the Geneva Convention asylum seekers are not obligated to seek asylum in the first "safe" nation they arrive in, they have the choice.
yes and they are choosing to leave this "safe" country and risk their childrens wellbeing - which is exactly the point i was making against the statement


Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.

so you agree with me they are making a choice in leaving a safe country that they feel is worth endangering their childs life
 
In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.

To leave one country is one thing, and choose a new country is another thing.

If they are involved in a formal process in order to become legal immigrants, then they will have to meet the requirements defined by authorities, and communicate on the former conditions of life (oppression or not) requiring an investigation as part of the process.

Alternatively, we can play with words and have a broad and subjective definition of the term "oppression", and say all of them are refugees fleeing what they perceive as political, social or economical oppression.

I would assume some left a country with a target in mind, the UK: they are ready to take any risks, especially when we know some of them borrowed a lot of money to pay human smugglers...

Oh its definitely both.

It also suits the government to point the finger at asylum seekers to blame them for government failings. Distracts from their inept handling of coronavirus, the economy (we have the biggest shrink of all G7 countries) and the biggest recession for decades.

Exactly. Distraction in the sense this is not a new issue, but a permanent issue.
 
Last edited:
Clearly people crossing the channel in a blow up boat is a problem.

There are other problems that we have as well as a country, BREXIT, Recession and a global pandemic. That doesn’t mean we can’t address it.

It’s really not black and white to say if you think people arriving on boats you are a right wing, uncaring Tory.

It’s clear as day, that this is a concern, and needs to be addressed at source. As far as I can see, the majority of this is essentially human trafficking, and these migrants are paying to get on the boat. That’s not right, that’s not to say asylum should not be granted, but we shouldn’t have boats of people in the sea, so let’s try and look at the reasons behind this, rather than burying your head in the sand and saying “we have bigger issues”.
 
The easiest and safest answer would be for the UK government to organise boats for these people to get across the channel. So why not just do that?
 

Wait for the Talking Heads to come on TV to explain why this is false. And then when it's proven to be right how it isn't a big deal. And then when it's proven to be a big deal how it's the best we could've hoped for. Then Boris will say something funny and we'll all forget about it.
 
The easiest and safest answer would be for the UK government to organise boats for these people to get across the channel. So why not just do that?
Because it would clearly be politically untenable.
 
Wait for the Talking Heads to come on TV to explain why this is false. And then when it's proven to be right how it isn't a big deal. And then when it's proven to be a big deal how it's the best we could've hoped for. Then Boris will say something funny and we'll all forget about it.
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I'm guessing the next few years are going to similar to post 2008 but just comically stupid. We've got a glimpse of the BBC new production model of chasing migrants on a inflatable boat(All that's missing is the classic Attenborough voice over)What a truly great period of human history to live through!

Over the last few months I often wonder what happened to guy on here who voted Tory because he thought Corbyn was going to destroy his children future by taking away private schools, now that we are facing another giant recession(A second recession and I'm not even in my 30's.)

At certain level I can't help but feel a little bit sorry for someone who's so detached from reality that it's fecks over their family. Still at least he's still got a second home the Tory cnut.
 
Last edited:
yes and they are choosing to leave this "safe" country and risk their childrens wellbeing - which is exactly the point i was making against the statement




so you agree with me they are making a choice in leaving a safe country that they feel is worth endangering their childs life

If you look at the figures, Germany and France accept 4 to 5 times more asylum seekers than the UK. It is only close to 5% of total asylum requests in Europe that are for residence in the UK.

Individuals will each have various reasons for wanting to reach the UK. Maybe they speak English, maybe they have family over here already, maybe they worked with the British Army in Syria and were told we are a welcoming country. "They" are not a single group with only one motive.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites? If you genuinely has an appetite to understand you could do.
 
If you look at the figures, Germany and France accept 4 to 5 times more asylum seekers than the UK. It is only close to 5% of total asylum requests in Europe that are for residence in the UK.

Individuals will each have various reasons for wanting to reach the UK. Maybe they speak English, maybe they have family over here already, maybe they worked with the British Army in Syria and were told we are a welcoming country. "They" are not a single group with only one motive.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites? If you genuinely has an appetite to understand you could do.
how does any of that relate to the point that somebody said people ONLY put their kids on boats if the sea is safetr than the land
How does any of what you said (which is true) actually pertain to the point which is these people are leaving a safe country not a war zone - if they choose to do so it is not for reasons of safety as you outline yourself
 
Over the last few months I often wonder what happened to guy on here who voted Tory because he thought Corbyn was going to destroy his children future by taking away private schools, now that we are facing another giant recession(A second recession and I'm not even in my 30's.)

At certain level I can't help but feel a little bit sorry for someone who's so detached from reality that it's fecks over their family. Still at least he's still got a second home the Tory cnut.
Meanwhile welcome to "oven ready" no deal Brexit. He can have private schools but an economy and jobs market that has shrunk by 25%.

Thank god Corbyn hasn't destroyed his children's future.
 
probably the same reason Australia dony

how does any of that relate to the point that somebody said people ONLY put their kids on boats if the sea is safetr than the land
How does any of what you said (which is true) actually pertain to the point which is these people are leaving a safe country not a war zone - if they choose to do so it is not for reasons of safety as you outline yourself
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
 
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
Thank you for that link, learnt a lot reading that.
 
This is a great way of spinning that we have a zombie economy built on low paid service work.

This is probably a wider trend (or maybe just in richer countries with a history of class-stratification), but a decent chunk of the British economy hinges on the fact that we (irrespective of our wealth) like to spend our spare time 'renting' the experience of being catered to or entertained by paid staff. Going to the cinema or a restaurant is the closest thing a lot of people have to a hobby. My pop-psychology take is that it's a mix of escapism and aspiration, basically role-playing at being old-timey aristocrats by temporarily enjoying the luxuries we associate with that lifestyle.

The obvious issue of overeliance on services is that the viability of most of these low-income, low stability jobs is intrinsically linked to whether other people in similar jobs have disposable income. This is why a right-wing government was forced into paying for furlough, because the alternative was a vicious cycle where the impact of job losses on the customer base of the service industry causes further job losses and so on. Obviously economic shocks affect any industry, but the British service industry is especially at risk because the customer base who fund it and the people whose jobs rely on that funding overlap so signficantly.
 
Meanwhile welcome to "oven ready" no deal Brexit. He can have private schools but an economy and jobs market that has shrunk by 25%.

Thank god Corbyn hasn't destroyed his children's future.
"The Tories in England had long imagined that they were enthusiastic about the monarchy, the church and beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent.”
 
Because it would clearly be politically untenable.
This spineless government bows to the racist whims of Farage.

It seems any time he pops up in the media with criticism of immigration/refugees etc this government desperately tries to prove they're even tougher than he is.
 
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country

so yes or no - is france a safe country?
 
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone

Damn you really got me there. Yeah I guess you cornered me into admitting that *checks notes* France is not a war zone
 
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country

so yes or no - is france a safe country?
So when the article says that the living conditions in France are rated as “inhumane” that doesn’t file under unsafe for them? Or because they’re refugees do they not have the right to live in liveable conditions?

So yes or no - do refugees not have the right to live in safe conditions?
 
This is probably a wider trend (or maybe just in richer countries with a history of class-stratification), but a decent chunk of the British economy hinges on the fact that we (irrespective of our wealth) like to spend our spare time 'renting' the experience of being catered to or entertained by paid staff. Going to the cinema or a restaurant is the closest thing a lot of people have to a hobby. My pop-psychology take is that it's a mix of escapism and aspiration, basically role-playing at being old-timey aristocrats by temporarily enjoying the luxuries we associate with that lifestyle.

The obvious issue of overeliance on services is that the viability of most of these low-income, low stability jobs is intrinsically linked to whether other people in similar jobs have disposable income. This is why a right-wing government was forced into paying for furlough, because the alternative was a vicious cycle where the impact of job losses on the customer base of the service industry causes further job losses and so on. Obviously economic shocks affect any industry, but the British service industry is especially at risk because the customer base who fund it and the people whose jobs rely on that funding overlap so signficantly.
this is worth a read
 
This spineless government bows to the racist whims of Farage.

It seems any time he pops up in the media with criticism of immigration/refugees etc this government desperately tries to prove they're even tougher than he is.
It's certainly distracting the right wing press from the government's other failings right now.

No down votes on this one...

eYA2FHU.jpg
 
In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.

Why does it matter if they're economic migrants (which is a charged and ridiculous term)? Or if they absolutely have to make the journey rather than thinking it's their best chance in life for them and their kids? What argument exactly are you trying to support?
 
So when the article says that the living conditions in France are rated as “inhumane” that doesn’t file under unsafe for them? Or because they’re refugees do they not have the right to live in liveable conditions?

So yes or no - do refugees not have the right to live in safe conditions?
Yes... though you know refugee status is only granted at the end of an asylum application right... so these people are not by definition refugees yet

refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely (see Definitions for more details). Such a person may be called an asylum seeker until granted refugee status by the contracting state or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees[2] (UNHCR) if they formally make a claim for asylum.[3]

Have they made an asylum application with the french authorities?
 
Why does it matter if they're economic migrants (which is a charged and ridiculous term)? Or if they absolutely have to make the journey rather than thinking it's their best chance in life for them and their kids? What argument exactly are you trying to support?

I’m not supporting any argument other than a desire to remove some of the more emotive language from the discussion when it comes to shouting people down with talk of how all these people are fleeing conflict. Personally I want immigrants and refugees to be allowed into the UK in much higher numbers that they currently are, but immigration conversations need to be calm and rational and to include actual facts and data, not turn into an endless back and forth between the people who use disgusting language like ‘invasion’ and the people who consider any discussion about numbers or local capabilities to mean someone’s a heartless Tory prick.
 
Britain takes in 600'000 migrants a year with net migration at 300'000.

We have a housing shortage of over a million homes and no money to build anywhere near enough social housing for those who will never own their own home as prices rise inexorably beyond most peoples incomes.

It cost tens of thousands of pounds to process each claim and extradition of failed claimants is a tiny fraction of those who who are caught which is in turn probably a fraction of those who come illegally.

What ever we do about this the status quo isn't really tenable. Any open door policy will only exacerbate our own domestic problems and has little public support.

I haven't heard of one suggestion which seems workable long term.
 
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals


At least we can agree its all the fault of the French.:wenger: