Do you want to discuss boring politics? (107 Viewers)

Forums New posts
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
'World leading'

Fuck off Priti.


Click to expand...

Alternatively they could have just opened a legitimate route to asylum in the UK negating the need for people smugglers.

Plus, what if the asylum seeker is Rwandan? Despite what the government is trying to claim Rwandas track record on civil rights is appalling. Especially for women and anyone voicing opposition to the government. Neither Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have anything good to say about them.
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
The budget for the Rwanda thing appears to be 1.5 billion which using the Australia costing is enough for around 100 people
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Fuck me, David Davis is now the moderate, caring sharing side of Toryism
 
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
FQEoccwX0AMbNz5
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
David O'Day said:
The budget for the Rwanda thing appears to be 1.5 billion which using the Australia costing is enough for around 100 people
Click to expand...

Entire cost of the current uk asylum system 1.5 billion per year.
Johnson said we can't keep asking the public to write a blank cheque but introduces a system that's far more expensive and will only deal with a fraction of those who seek asylum.
 
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
But we're not allowed to call (the majority of) Tory Leavers racist pricks remember because we might hurt their feelings


FQTnyt1WYA4pVH0
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
But we're not allowed to call (the majority of) Tory Leavers racist pricks remember because we might hurt their feelings


FQTnyt1WYA4pVH0
Click to expand...

Tbh I find the Rwanda plan pretty abhorrent (not to mention a ridiculous waste of cash), but calling everyone who supports it a racist will pretty much ensure the Tories continue to clean up with voters who are worried about this stuff.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
I’ve read the article 3 times and at no point does it say any country wasn’t free to go it’s own route, which of course they always were. It does say they held an emergency video conference of the 27 nations in response to the USA’s aggression in trying to buy up the world’s supply of vaccines before development was complete. It says that they all AGREED to purchase as a block to bulk buy vaccines. The biggest criticism in the article of the EU seems to be it backed the wrong horse. It even says in the article that it didn’t back BioNTech but also explains that wasn’t without the benefit of hindsight all that bad of a decision given BioNTech was a cancer drug researcher prior to Covid 19 so didn’t have the experience other companies did in developing vaccines let alone vaccines for coronavirus’. Maybe you linked the wrong article.
Click to expand...

This is too much like hard work, however, one final effort. I’ve added a brief timeline and then some quotes from the article as you must’ve missed them…

13 June 2020 - The Alliance (Germany, France, Italy and holland) agree own AZ deal

Other EU countries pissed off. ‘The then Belgian Health Minister Maggie De Block slammed the deal with Oxford/AstraZeneca as an “unreasonable” move that weakened everyone’ EU requests Alliance back off.

‘All that was left to do was convince the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance to give up its head start’ - This is the political pressure I was talking about.

‘After the 27 members of the EU signed on to the plan, the four-country Alliance closed shop, allowing the Commission to take over its talks with Johnson & Johnson, and — after some initial confusion — its deal with Oxford/AstraZeneca.’

14 August 2020 - EU finally signs AZ deal which was basically replacing the above Alliance agreement. Two months after Alliance had agreed original deal !!!

Third paragraph

‘Specifically, the bloc’s decisions to prioritize process over speed and to put solidarity between EU countries ahead of giving individual governments more room to maneuver have been criticized for holding back the coronavirus response.’

Final paragraph

‘But for the likes of France and Germany, giving up this option could prove to be a major sacrifice. The EU’s slower, more deliberative and cooperative effort may have cost precious time, and precious lives.’

As I’ve said previously, I understand why the EU felt they had to do it this way ie not competing against each other and looking after all members, however, I was just highlighting that we didn’t have these constraints so could move quicker.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
This is too much like hard work, however, one final effort. I’ve added a brief timeline and then some quotes from the article as you must’ve missed them…

13 June 2020 - The Alliance (Germany, France, Italy and holland) agree own AZ deal

Other EU countries pissed off. ‘The then Belgian Health Minister Maggie De Block slammed the deal with Oxford/AstraZeneca as an “unreasonable” move that weakened everyone’ EU requests Alliance back off.

‘All that was left to do was convince the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance to give up its head start’ - This is the political pressure I was talking about.

‘After the 27 members of the EU signed on to the plan, the four-country Alliance closed shop, allowing the Commission to take over its talks with Johnson & Johnson, and — after some initial confusion — its deal with Oxford/AstraZeneca.’

14 August 2020 - EU finally signs AZ deal which was basically replacing the above Alliance agreement. Two months after Alliance had agreed original deal !!!

Third paragraph

‘Specifically, the bloc’s decisions to prioritize process over speed and to put solidarity between EU countries ahead of giving individual governments more room to maneuver have been criticized for holding back the coronavirus response.’

Final paragraph

‘But for the likes of France and Germany, giving up this option could prove to be a major sacrifice. The EU’s slower, more deliberative and cooperative effort may have cost precious time, and precious lives.’

As I’ve said previously, I understand why the EU felt they had to do it this way ie not competing against each other and looking after all members, however, I was just highlighting that we didn’t have these constraints so could move quicker.
Click to expand...
So exactly like I said then. No one was forced so there’s no way we would have been forced. Wrong link again?
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
That thread has to be read.

This government is beneath contempt. Corrupt, criminal, and staggeringly incompetent at all levels.
Click to expand...
It’s no accident that the country is spiralling down when it’s run by a government who’s decency, competence, honesty, ethics, honesty etc etc etc are spiralling down.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The real sucker punch is the government promised it would at least match existing EU funding, it doesn’t and by some distance. They also promised that it would be less complicated cutting EU red tape. It has cut EU red tape, by default, then replaced it with something that apparently at best is just as complicated.

That £360M a week is suddenly looking good value for money.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
So yesterday Boris was bragging that we could only do this nonsense because of brexit and today the justification for doing it is that Denmark are doing it. That’s Denmark who are in the EU.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 100 (members: 7, guests: 93)
    Top