Do you want to discuss boring politics? (116 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
That's what surprises me, that nobody is actually brave / confident enough to do that. Blair seemed to harness the benefits of immigration - cool Britannia managed to make multiculturalism a positive after all.

I mean we're prepared to state things in black and white elsewhere, so why on earth doesn't somebody do the reverse in this case?

tbf though (as we see on this thread!) you can put the numbers and the whys down as much as you like, and some people will still mutter about 'losing a British culture' or something similar...
When Blair became PM, net migration was around 50k so it’s a lot easier to argue the virtues of immigration when numbers are low. Against a backdrop of NHS waiting lists, overcrowded schools, overcrowded roads and a generation of people struggling with exploding rents and mortgages… those arguments are less potent.

Overall, I’m a proponent of immigration and see the benefits of it. We do need to ‘clamp down’ on low-income migration to avoid exploitative employers relying on ‘cheap’ labour rather than investing in equipment and automation. Likewise, there needs to be a tightening on granting visas for dependents for students and workers. Then, we need to be policing the compliance of said visas. For example, if people are here on health and social visas, it’s only right they’re remaining in the country on the condition they’re working in that field.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
When Blair became PM, net migration was around 50k so it’s a lot easier to argue the virtues of immigration when numbers are low. Against a backdrop of NHS waiting lists, overcrowded schools, overcrowded roads and a generation of people struggling with exploding rents and mortgages… those arguments are less potent.

Overall, I’m a proponent of immigration and see the benefits of it. We do need to ‘clamp down’ on low-income migration to avoid exploitative employers relying on ‘cheap’ labour rather than investing in equipment and automation. Likewise, there needs to be a tightening on granting visas for dependents for students and workers. Then, we need to be policing the compliance of said visas. For example, if people are here on health and social visas, it’s only right they’re remaining in the country on the condition they’re working in that field.
Similarly for people on agricultural work visas.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
I think you're missing another important point, National Rally dropped its commitment to leaving the EU.
I don't think the French are anywhere near ready for that despite the EUs current unfavourable ratings which I think have a lot to do with Von Der Lyen.
I haven’t said anything about Frexit. Even Macron reckons it would be tough referendum to win (to remain) if they had their own.

The big thing making Frexit more impractical than Brexit is membership of the Euro. It’s far riskier to people’s money leaving the EU and changing currency.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
I haven’t said anything about Frexit. Even Macron reckons it would be tough referendum to win (to remain) if they had their own.

The big thing making Frexit more impractical than Brexit is membership of the Euro. It’s far riskier to people’s money leaving the EU and changing currency.

I know you didn't say anything about it, but I'm saying I think their desicion to drop that policy boosted their vote
Good point about leaving the Euro
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
It’s all been a bit crap and half hearted though, which to be fair is hugely patriotic of us.

I think some of it can just be rebranding/repackaging existing laws. The one that always sticks out to me is benefits rules around “illegals immigrants” and the Facebook memes about them all getting free houses and cars. It’s obvious bollocks so just bring in a law restating its bollocks and go full PR campaign about how you’re banning illegals immigrants from benefits and British people will be first in the queue for houses, etc.

Do people know that you need to prove the ability to speak English for most visas? Probably not so make it clear “If you come to the UK you must speak English”. Changes virtually nothing but nice black and white messaging for this taken in by memes.

Other stuff as well, the quite significant NHS surcharge that people from outside of the EEA have to pay (this is on top of them paying NI and Tax if they are working).
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
I know you didn't say anything about it, but I'm saying I think their desicion to drop that policy boosted their vote
Good point about leaving the Euro
I see where you went with that now, you were adding to my point. You’re right, a lot particularly eurosceptic parties in the Eurozone backed away from talking about exiting the EU, even if they philosophically agree with Brexit.

On that note, I think both the ‘far right’ and ‘far left’ in France know that openly calling for Frexit risks scaring off a lot of voters. Their tactics will be more subtle apparently. One of Macron’s ex-cabinet ministers has framed it as ‘Frexit in disguise’. On one hand, the RN want to reduce budget contributions significantly. On the other, the LFI will openly disregard Eurozone budget rules.

The future for the EU does not look promising if France openly revolts and more eurosceptic parties enter government.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
everyone was pretty young in my polling station at 8am, guess the old folk are still in bed at that time
What an absolute twat you are. Did you take your UB40 as identity.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
This is my fault. I met Farage back in the 2000s and did the classic “got your nose” trick, but for the country. In my defence it was awfully funny.



I know we’ve got prison capacity issues, but I don’t understand why we don’t instantly deport foreign criminals.
Quite right. They can fuck off . Why should we pay for them ?
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
But if people actually paid attention they'd know Reform are excluding health and social care workers from their targets. Who make up a huge number of immigrants. So in fact they would do very little to change anything, just treat them more like shit.
They’d probably close loopholes around dependents. We issued something like 145k visa for healthcare workers, with 205k dependents and there’s obviously not 145k more healthcare workers.

It’s clear that our visa system is not being policed correctly. This is stirring legitimate anger in people. That’s without going into other issues around the welfare state and what not.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
The next election will be the one to worry about I think
i'm not sure on that, the tories are that unpopular and the expectations so low that even small governance victories will seem like bigger wins

plus the absolute bin fire that will be remains of the tory party isn't going get them back in power soon
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Flip flop. Numbers again. I thought it was about the message of illegal immigration?

I agree on Denmark though. A template for how to handle the far right.
But they’ve assuaged public concern with lots of talk of immigrants committing to Danish life or going home, prisoners not released if their country won’t take them back, etc. I think they’re quite robustly secular with stuff like hijab bans as well. Otherwise normal social democrats afaict.
I don't anything about Denmark but their net migration rate is higher than the UK in recent years. Immigration is hugely overstated as an issue in the UK.

View attachment 36615

UK

There’s the control measure that Denmark have too.

They’ve designated Syria as a ‘safe’ country to deport illegal refeugees yet we vacillate over whether or not Rwanda is ‘safe’ or not. Likewise, they’ve passed ‘ghetto laws’ to avoid build ups of ‘non-western’ and low-income zones.

I don’t know the efficacy of the laws and would need to look into it in more detail. On the face it, imagine if the Tories or Reform proposed such a law? They’d be denounced as ‘far right’. Yet, these measures are taken by moderate, even centre-left governments.

The point here is that other countries seemingly have a better grasp of controlling immigration than our government.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
There’s the control measure that Denmark have too.

They’ve designated Syria as a ‘safe’ country to deport illegal refeugees yet we vacillate over whether or not Rwanda is ‘safe’ or not. Likewise, they’ve passed ‘ghetto laws’ to avoid build ups of ‘non-western’ and low-income zones.

I don’t know the efficacy of the laws and would need to look into it in more detail. On the face it, imagine if the Tories or Reform proposed such a law? They’d be denounced as ‘far right’. Yet, these measures are taken by moderate, even centre-left governments.

The point here is that other countries seemingly have a better grasp of controlling immigration than our government.
The Danes saying it is safe to return people to Syria and the UK Rwanda scheme is in no way comparable.

One is Denmark saying they will return Syrian people to Syria if needed and the other is a reciprocal arrangement where we can send 300 non Rwandans to Rwanda and Rwanda can actually send people to the UK.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The Danes saying it is safe to return people to Syria and the UK Rwanda scheme is in no way comparable.

One is Denmark saying they will return Syrian people to Syria if needed and the other is a reciprocal arrangement where we can send 300 non Rwandans to Rwanda and Rwanda can actually send people to the UK.

Third country processing is normal, Australia processes claims of asylum in Papa New Guinea. No one would claim the Australian government is far right. Ultimately, the UK needs a deterrent against illegal crossings.

Realistically, what 3rd country can the UK viably use? The EU is a free movement zone and we don’t share a land border with ROI.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I haven’t said anything about Frexit. Even Macron reckons it would be tough referendum to win (to remain) if they had their own.

The big thing making Frexit more impractical than Brexit is membership of the Euro. It’s far riskier to people’s money leaving the EU and changing currency.
Certainly inflationary for themselves and probably deflationary for the others?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Third country processing is normal, Australia processes claims of asylum in Papa New Guinea. No one would claim the Australian government is far right. Ultimately, the UK needs a deterrent against illegal crossings.

Realistically, what 3rd country can the UK viably use? The EU is a free movement zone and we don’t share a land border with ROI.
Why don’t we do third country processing in France then? We can then give them safe passage to the UK should their application be successful and take them out of the hands of the gangs and out of small boats.

We do share a land border with the ROI, it’s called Northern Ireland.
 

Como

Well-Known Member
I remember when they covered the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in School, now this was pre internet, and it never made much sense to me, why would Societies destroy themselves?
Why don’t we do third country processing in France then? We can then give them safe passage to the UK should their application be successful and take them out of the hands of the gangs and out of small boats.

We do share a land border with the ROI, it’s called Northern Ireland.

Obviously now it does.
 
D

Deleted member 9744

Guest
There’s the control measure that Denmark have too.

They’ve designated Syria as a ‘safe’ country to deport illegal refeugees yet we vacillate over whether or not Rwanda is ‘safe’ or not. Likewise, they’ve passed ‘ghetto laws’ to avoid build ups of ‘non-western’ and low-income zones.

I don’t know the efficacy of the laws and would need to look into it in more detail. On the face it, imagine if the Tories or Reform proposed such a law? They’d be denounced as ‘far right’. Yet, these measures are taken by moderate, even centre-left governments.

The point here is that other countries seemingly have a better grasp of controlling immigration than our government.
We haven’t vacillated over whether Rwanda is a safe country. It was deemed not to be safe and the issue was whether or not to break international law. The Government decided in the end to do so.

And yes so called ghetto laws woukd be far right and racist.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The other problem with using Australia as an example of third country processing is that it fails in its core mission and this will sound familiar, it’s to bust the people smuggling gangs. Australia started third country processing in 2012, a mere 12 years later and they still haven’t bust the people smuggling gangs. What’s that saying about doing the same things expecting different results?
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Third country processing is normal, Australia processes claims of asylum in Papa New Guinea. No one would claim the Australian government is far right. Ultimately, the UK needs a deterrent against illegal crossings.

Realistically, what 3rd country can the UK viably use? The EU is a free movement zone and we don’t share a land border with ROI.
Rwanda is not 3rd party processing though? People would not be sent to Rwanda to be processed and then if accepted allowed into the UK as per the 3rd party processing schemes you mention. They would then stay in Rwanda.

The UK doesn't have a land border with the ROI? Ok you may want to check that one out.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Rwanda is not 3rd party processing though? People would not be sent to Rwanda to be processed and then if accepted allowed into the UK as per the 3rd party processing schemes you mention. They would then stay in Rwanda.

The UK doesn't have a land border with the ROI? Ok you may want to check that one out.
He’s thinking of his pre-1922 textbook there
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
I remember when they covered the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in School, now this was pre internet, and it never made much sense to me, why would Societies destroy themselves?

Because most politicains are in it for themselves.

A fact not changed since classical antiquity.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Why don’t we do third country processing in France then? We can then give them safe passage to the UK should their application be successful and take them out of the hands of the gangs and out of small boats.

We do share a land border with the ROI, it’s called Northern Ireland.
The NI-ROI border isn’t policed and there is freedom of movement between that border. Hence ROI complaining migrants were crossing into Ireland via NI. Ironically, citing the Rwanda policy as the reason for this.

As for France, I’m sure it’s been considered but a) France would need to agree to it (they wouldn’t) and b) how would stop channel crossings if they’re coming from France in the first place?

It amuses me that you’ve more or less echoed Farage’s policy of sending illegal immigrants via the channel back to France.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
We haven’t vacillated over whether Rwanda is a safe country. It was deemed not to be safe and the issue was whether or not to break international law. The Government decided in the end to do so.

And yes so called ghetto laws woukd be far right and racist.
Why is is safe for the UN to send refugees to Rwanda but not the UK?
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 9744

Guest
Why is is safe for the UN to send refugees to Rwanda but not the UK?
Is it safe or is it a deterrent? Either it's so abhorrent that it will prevent desperate people coming here or it's not in which case where's the deterrent.

There is no logic behind this policy which has cost £350 million just in fees and much more in reality. It's all been about pushing a divisive anti foreigner rhetoric in a desperate attempt by the Tories to cover up their pitiful record in power.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top