And Hong Kong and to a degree Nepal.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
And Hong Kong and to a degree Nepal.
Yep, horrible little Englanders fully embracing their far right fantasies.
Yes, agree. It will also affect Europe and all countries of the world in varying degrees.
They can do it when they want to.
Well said. The boat “problem“ arises from the fact that it is almost impossible to get to the UK legally if you are a refugee. The issue is exacerbated by our horrible media who make it sound like the UK (or England to be more precise) is the only country accepting refugees.
Correct.
It is the UK government, especially the Home Secretary who has made immigration all about 'The Boats'. And pretending that they care about these people who are having 'to make the dangerous crossing'.
Do they really care.... they don't give a F.
It is all about posturing.
Demonise the boat people and then say you are going to stop them. Utter crap.
And now the truth is going to hit the headlines, with immigration numbers that are going to shock a lot of people.
Especially those people who voted for Brexit on the basis of taking back control of our borders.
Brexit was a CON. And you have been well and truly CONNED.
Indeed. These people are completely ignorant about Southern Italy and Greece.
Get in!
Brexit food trade barriers have cost UK households £7bn, report finds
LSE researchers estimate that extra barriers on EU food imports have pushed up bills by £250 on average
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...iers-have-cost-uk-households-7bn-report-finds
Brexit food trade barriers have cost UK households £7bn, report finds
LSE researchers estimate that extra barriers on EU food imports have pushed up bills by £250 on average
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...iers-have-cost-uk-households-7bn-report-finds
Spend more time talking about a handful of people in a rubber dinghy than the miserable lives of millions. Trump style diversionary tactics working
It's what Braverman's job is, as given to her by the ERG. "Make them look over there. Everything is their fault, not us."
The funniest part are the Brexiters' replies with all sorts of graphics trying to prove it's not the case.
Its not the status of the asylum seeker or the refugee that is illegal', its trying to entry the country via illegal methods that is.
Yes, there may not be many 'safe' routes, direct from where people are coming from, but there are when they have landed in a safe country. There are some safe passageways, though there are for some still the necessity of queuing. I suspect where people arrive properly documented and present themselves to the authorities they will get processed and become one of the 656k legal immigrants to which you have referred, and they may also have to experience that part of British culture that accepts 'queuing'.
Yes, personally I am happy with the arrival of legal immigrants, Britain will desperately need more, yes perhaps up to a million per year will come. However the vast majority of the British public is unlikely to be persuaded of this, unless the illegal entrants are stopped, 'the boat people' are a high profile and visible part of this spectrum of illegal entry, and so the government, any government will have to been seen to get on top of this first, its a 'no brainer'.
The public has to be persuaded, not 'brow-beaten,' into understanding for many reasons immigration into the UK will need to increase, for everyone's benefit, and also because of climate change, in the next fifty years will see increases in migration from certain places, at an almost exponential rate. Therefore it has to be global coordinated and above all operate on legal framework that takes account of the forces that cause these dramatic changes.
As soon as they are picked up they claim asylum, that's what they're entitled to do. I pointed out to you yesterday - say they landed in France first. France won't be the first safe country but anyway; There is no way they can claim asylum in Britain because there is no legal route. What you are saying is that because they have landed in France first they should claim asylum in France.
That's the whole point. the UK make it impossible for them to claim asylum in the UK hoping that they will claim it elsewhere.
The whole purpose of the Uk government is to distract the public's attention towards a few thousand refugees, most of whose claims will be accepted eventually.
You never know they might actually do the jobs that are needed to be done and pay taxes.
Hope you realise that some of the traffickers are based in the UK - any news on the Uk authorities arresting them? French and other EU police have stopped far more than have actually gone across.
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.
However the issue isn't really asylum its the illegal entry, or as some have taken to calling it, the 'irregular entry,' it sounds better, but it is still about legality. It's true many people attempt many illegal ways, to get into the UK, hidden on vehicles, and on trains etc. not all are asylum candidates, and as you point out the people coming on boats are only a fraction of those attempting to enter illegally, but they are the most visible, and probably attempting the most dangerous non-legal routes, which puts themselves and others sent out to rescue them in the busy shipping lanes of the Channel, at risk.
The public want it stopped and it hands the Tories a massive whip hand to use, for 'spoiling' tactics at the coming GE. I doubt they will stop Labour winning the next election, but they will try to make sure they don't have a sizeable majority. Once more a weakened Labour Government will have to try to turn the tide of years of Tory mismanagement.
For me Starmer, whatever his other faults, is playing the long game on the aftermath of Brexit and of what to do about the Boat people, hinting at things, deriding the Rwanda solution etc.but still keeping his main eggs in the cost of living basket.
Last edited:
But as I said France isn't the first safe country; Probably the eighth or ninth on the trip and France takes far more refugees than the UK as do other countries like Germany. Which country do you think Suella or Keir will persuade to take them as they don't want any.
Then that is France's problem, seems like everyone is in the 'same boat', excuse the pun. Besides France and Germany have a lot more space and being a part of the EU you would imagine, e.g. freedom to travel, etc. a lot more things to offer, actually its a wonder they all don't want to stay there? You have to ask yourself why would anyone want to come to the racialist, homophobic, misogynist, nationalistic, 'lovers of queuing' etc. UK.
However choice of country is not really the problem, illegal entry is the problem and until it 'headline' grabbers (e.g. Boat people) is solved serious discussions about migration, that is every bit as important as climate change measures, especially over the next fifty years, cannot commence, certainly not in the UK.
The Tory's know this and will 'work the angle' mercilessly over the next few months. The UK needs immigration, as people will eventually see once the illegality of the boat people is put to rest. Starmer has to be very careful and at the moment there is hardly a 'fag packet' thickness between the two main parties. The nonsense about Rwanda will fade.
Last edited:
At what point do they become illegal, as soon as they set foot anywhere outside the country they're fleeing from?
The reasons usually stated are they have relatives in the UK, they speak English or maybe they fell for the adverts saying they would be staying in 5 star hotels, get free money, get houses. Farage is a good salesman.
So why should other countries take the refugees who want to come to the UK on top of the many more they are already taking.
We're not talking about Europeans. We are staying here, more Europeans are leaving the UK than going there, if you look at the latest figures. The Uk told them they're not welcome. They want immigrants from everywhere else. They got what they wanted.
No, the first safe country they arrive at they should claim asylum, it's not difficult to understand, when they come to the UK from France or another country other than their own, they are leaving a safe country and Its the method of attempted entry that is illegal.
If they have legitimate reasons for coming from a safe country to the UK, relatives, or the simply want to settle in the UK, etc. then the information that is required needs to be presented at the appropriate point, presumable the British Embassy in the country they are in. Yes, they will have to wait, but its in a safe country their lives are not being threatened.
High profile continued illegal entry routes, like the small boats, are doing a dis-service to all legitimate immigrants, including asylum seekers.
Italy or Greece, Turkey you mean, this is where this conversation started. The asylum seekers are those in the small boats, they're not illegal immigrants; Suella is doing a good job on the Uk electorate. There is no legal route. the British embassies or otherwise are not interested. This is where we came in.
Brown people who arrive by boat = illegal.
Illegal = right wingers demonising refugees.
Can you show me where does it say this is illegal? Because online I keep seeing the 1951 Refugee Convention being mentioned, which apparently doesn't require anyone to ask for asylum in any specific place.
If they’re ‘illegal’ as you claim then why, when picked up, are they sent to an asylum processing centre and not arrested?
There are four ‘peoples’ for whom there is a ‘safe & legal route’, could you name them?
Also, flip this the other way. If you had to flee, only spoke English, how would feel if some Herbert was going on about how you could only go to France and had to settle there? Surely you’d want to settle somewhere that you had the best chance of starting a new life, right?
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...line-of-tory-pms-failing-to-cut-net-migration
This has led to a change in the workforce coming to the UK. Post-Brexit, Indians account for more than a third of those coming to the UK on long-term visas. Many of the Polish workers who arrived in the early 2000s have left.
Because there has been a move towards allowing skilled workers, who tend to be older and less transient, many of those arriving now bring their families.
The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the net migration rise has been entirely driven by non-EU workers, whose numbers are up by 220,000.
This has led to a change in the workforce coming to the UK. Post-Brexit, Indians account for more than a third of those coming to the UK on long-term visas. Many of the Polish workers who arrived in the early 2000s have left.
Because there has been a move towards allowing skilled workers, who tend to be older and less transient, many of those arriving now bring their families.
The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the net migration rise has been entirely driven by non-EU workers, whose numbers are up by 220,000.
If they set sail from their own country and came directly to the UK they may be a case can be made, but this is not what happens, you know it, they know it and the general public in the UK knows it... this method of trying to circumvent the legal routes, is setting the whole issue of a proper immigration debate further and further back.
I have tried to point out previously it is not they who are illegal, it's the attempted method of entry operated by people traffickers which is illegal. If the traffickers could be picked up I am sure they would be arrested. The plight of many desperate people is being exploited by people traffickers/criminals and as long as the small boats continue to arrive the real issue of establishing the necessary safe routes is put back, because it remains 'a live' issue in politics, which the Tories will continue to exploit.
Both these statements are true, well done Paul.
Last edited:
How do you circumvent a legal route which does not exist. More than a dozen times this has been said. There is no legal route. They pay some trafficker who is part of a chain of passers , some of whom will be British and they will be passed down the line, dumped on beach in france given a dinghy which has probably been bought somewhere on route, could be any country and told to cross the channel. Either they'll be pciked by by the coastguard or they'll meet the trafficker in the UK.
I didn't write those statements, they are in the article.
So you now have far more older immigrants plus their families from all over the world who will not do the jobs that are needed, the jobs that the British don't want to do, but compete with the British who have been trained by Starmer or Johnson to do those jobs.
But at least you've got rid of all the Europeans who did the jobs that were needed. Net immigration would be much more if the Europeans hadn't left.
Absolutely brilliant strategy.
Should give Farage an award, presented live on the BBC, for being the person who contributed the most for increasing immigration in the UK.
No one gives about what the UK wants anymore. If the UK want it to stop they need to come up with a plan that is beneficial to everyone that gets it to stop. Nobodoy outside the UK cares whether the UK thinks someone is legal or not. If someone is illegal here let them go to the UK... Why would I care? Why help someone in their populist charade who's constantly been a pain for a decade?
The country that used to rule the waves is now scared of an invasion of haphazard dinghys.
Nope. They can seek asylum whereever they wish.
Fundamental misunderstanding there and i think if you thought it through the reasoning behind it is pretty obvious.
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".
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.
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.
Paul, whilst I admire your stamina, why do you bother arguing with him?
Doesn't bother me. The truth is out there! I'll get it eventually.
They are both retirees and their grandkids are afraid of them
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:
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.
You both are retirees with too much time. That is why you are at it
Probably
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!