Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[class ep-09]

Emmanuel Macron to reject Sunak’s plan to solve small boats crisis

French President wants UK to establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers

www.independent.co.uk

Who would it thought …

 

[jon0844]

Emmanuel Macron to reject Sunak’s plan to solve small boats crisis

French President wants UK to establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers

www.independent.co.uk

Who would it thought …

This is perfect! All the ideas the Tories have are ridiculous and likely impossible, but Rishi has to appeal to the knuckle draggers and be seen to be on the side of the 'silent majority' who are not worried about anything in their lives other than boats. Cost of living crisis? Bah! Who cares!!

Now this has happened, it's nice and easy to blame France - just as we could blame the ECHR and so on. Poor Rishi! He would love to deal with the boats, but the pesky French won't allow it even though we helped save them in WWII...

I can see how GB News, the Express and the likes of Farage will be salivating at the ability to create more division and hatred towards Europe, and especially the French.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Emmanuel Macron to reject Sunak’s plan to solve small boats crisis

French President wants UK to establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers

www.independent.co.uk

Who would it thought …

Macron is of course welcome to have an opinion about whatever happens in the UK, but I can't really see that how the UK chooses to deal with people who illegally turn up on our shores in small boats is any his Government's business. Especially when his own Government has for years chosen not to do much about the problem of all the people who are illegally living around Calais while choosing not to claim asylum in France - which thereby indirectly contributes to the UK's problems.

 

[class ep-09]

Macron is of course welcome to have an opinion about whatever happens in the UK, but I can't really see that how the UK chooses to deal with people who illegally turn up on our shores in small boats is any his Government's business. Especially when his own Government has for years chosen not to do much about the problem of all the people who are illegally living around Calais while choosing not to claim asylum in France - which thereby indirectly contributes to the UK's problems.

Why France should care about UK’s problem ?
Because we are British ?


Macron knows that if France starts accepting “ returns “ from UK , he is a toast , so why would he do it ?
They accept 2,3 times more asylum seekers than UK already.

People going across in small boats are UK’s problem , end of story .

By the way - people who come across The Channel are not illegal immigrants if they are granted asylum ( which is over 90%).

Only ones that have asylum denied you may call illegal .

 

[Domh245]

Macron is of course welcome to have an opinion about whatever happens in the UK, but I can't really see that how the UK chooses to deal with people who illegally turn up on our shores in small boats is any his Government's business.

When the UK chooses to deport them back to France, then it is his business...

Emmanuel Macron is expected to reject British calls to return small boat asylum seekers to France, after his calls for more safe and legal routes to the UK were ignored.

 

[edwin_m]

Rishi has to appeal to the knuckle draggers and be seen to be on the side of the 'silent majority' who are not worried about anything in their lives other than boats.

The boats could be largely put out of business overnight by setting up processing centres in France and admitting eligible asylum seekers to the UK. But the target of those people isn't the boats, it's the people in the boats - no matter how they arrive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When the UK chooses to deport them back to France, then it is his business...

Are there any plans to deport asylum seekers to France? I wasn't aware of any in the reports I read about the Government's proposals. (Clearly doing so would probably be impossible anyway since France is unlikely to accept them).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2023 ==

The boats could be largely put out of business overnight by setting up processing centres in France and admitting eligible asylum seekers to the UK. But the target of those people isn't the boats, it's the people in the boats - no matter how they arrive.

No, they wouldn't be put out of business. In the first place, what do you think the people who have their asylum cases refused are going to do? And in the second place, it'll massively increase the demand for people to get to France in order to claim asylum in the UK from France. If you did what you're suggesting, you'll cause a massive expansion in people smuggling to France (admittedly you might argue that means the smuggling is no longer the UK's problem, if you have a not-in-my-backyard mentality But you'd almost certainly see a massive increase in asylum cases, which would cause more pressures on the asylum system).

 

[jon0844]

Are there any plans to deport asylum seekers to France? I wasn't aware of any in the reports I read about the Government's proposals. (Clearly doing so would probably be impossible anyway since France is unlikely to accept them).

Isn't that what the Dublin Agreement is about? When we left the EU, we lost that ability, but people knew what they were voting for!!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2023 ==

The boats could be largely put out of business overnight by setting up processing centres in France and admitting eligible asylum seekers to the UK.

France has offered to do this I believe, but of course that would cost money. Instead we don't spend the money to process them and end up with huge bills to put them in hotels.

Maybe the hotels used are run by people/companies with links to Tory MPs. I mean, these days I am always assuming there's a scam going on with everything this party does.

 

[edwin_m]

No, they wouldn't be put out of business. In the first place, what do you think the people who have their asylum cases refused are going to do? And in the second place, it'll massively increase the demand for people to get to France in order to claim asylum in the UK from France. If you did what you're suggesting, you'll cause a massive expansion in people smuggling to France (admittedly you might argue that means the smuggling is no longer the UK's problem, if you have a not-in-my-backyard mentality But you'd almost certainly see a massive increase in asylum cases, which would cause more pressures on the asylum system).

Something over 90% of the asylum seekers who get to the UK are eventually accepted, so giving people in France a legal means to apply would, as I said, put the boats largely out of business (which is Sunak's stated objective). And if the current difficulty in getting to the UK was deterring people from travelling across Europe, why are there so many waiting in Calais?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Something over 90% of the asylum seekers who get to the UK are eventually accepted,

But will it remain over 90% if future changes tot the law make it harder for people who are not genuinely escaping persecution to claim asylum? Look for example at how many claims by Albanian asylum seekers are accepted. There is almost no reason why we should be accepting asylum claims from people arriving from a democratic country.

And if the current difficulty in getting to the UK was deterring people from travelling across Europe, why are there so many waiting in Calais?

The numbers waiting in Calais, large as they are, constitute a negligibly small proportion of the people would probably have very valid asylum claims if they made it to Dover. It doesn't take much stretch of the imagination to realise that the huge difficulty in making that last 20 miles across the Channel is going to constitute a significant deterrent, and is therefore likely to be a reason why the numbers attempting to come to the UK via France aren't much higher.

The logic is really no different from any other situation where people make a choice: If you make something that's desirable easier to get, then more people will attempt to get whatever that thing is. It's basic market forces!

 

[brad465]

The logic is really no different from any other situation where people make a choice: If you make something that's desirable easier to get, then more people will attempt to get whatever that thing is. It's basic market forces!

What we have to remember is there are two sides to people moving: one is the push factor, the other is the pull factor. Hardly anyone talks about the push factors, which is strife/hardship/war in the country of origin. Perhaps we and other developed countries should be looking at foreign policy to either support countries where people are coming from to improve them enough that they feel they don't need to leave, and/or not interfere in them in a negative way that forces them out (admittingly quite a few of these are in hindsight for now, such as foreign military campaigns without an exit strategy, or fuelling the economy of a dictatorship which then uses that power to invade neighbours). We won't be able to outright fix it, but it's important to be aware there are two sides, not one. Either that or we turn the UK into a such a dump that the pull factor for people coming here disappears as by comparison we're not as attractive, but somehow I don't think that will go down well with anyone.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Investing in peace through foreign aid/development is not exactly a new idea. It is actually government policy.

Not only do they directly fund projects, they support NGOs.

The money is a pittance of what is arguably needed, but like a lot of these things which require global effort, we more than pull our weight.

People don't know about it because it runs counter to everything they are told about our country, and the only time you'll probably here about it from now on, would be as if somehow this is us paying our dues for the Sins Of Empire.

 

[jon0844]

Don't forget the people that are against any foreign aid also say 'we should help our own first', yet don't want to do either.

'30p Lee' and other right wing nutters make it abundantly clear that they don't want any money to go to anyone in need. They've successfully dehumanised these people, but also care little about anyone homeless in the UK also. Do any really care about our war veterans (heck, are there even that many veterans on the streets here? That always feels like people are repeating what they hear in the USA) for example?

Sadly this all seems to be the talking point for loads of modern day Tory MPs and clearly a regular feature on the daily WhatsApp talking point chat group. Keep the people fighting and distracted about all the problems that really are impacting UK citizens.

 

[Falcon1200]

The boats could be largely put out of business overnight by setting up processing centres in France and admitting eligible asylum seekers to the UK.

Genuine questions, because I do not know how the system works:

Do those desperate people, who spend every penny they have and risk their lives crossing the Channel, have no other way of claiming asylum other than by getting to the UK?

If there is not, then setting up processing centres in mainland Europe seems a logical and compassionate step, but how would this actually work? If such a centre was established at say Calais, would it not simply become a magnet for even larger numbers of refugees/migrants, causing accommodation and social problems there; If, that is, local/national French politicians would agree to such a centre in the first place.

It never ceases to surprise, and sadden me, that people take such a dangerous way to reaching the UK, and I too am deeply concerned by the tone and harshness of the Government's latest proposals (although, Gary Lineker please note, they are not in any way comparable to Germany in the 1930s), but at the same time every country has the right to control who enters it. How that is done is no simple matter, even for an island nation such as ours.

 

[nw1]

I'd agree with a previous poster that the whole thing is a distraction to attempt to court the populist-right vote and switch focus from the government's failings in other areas, though whether it'll work now, I'm not sure. I suspect more people are concerned about fuel bills, the cost of living, deteriorating public services, and the general state of the economy than they are about immigrants.

It continues to make Sunak look clueless and directionless though, and makes it look as if he is just blowing with the wind, trying this and that in an attempt to minimise losses at the next GE, but without any real strategic plan. One moment he makes some progress in Northern Ireland, next minute it's back to the tired old right-wing populism of the Johnson era.

 

[Broucek]

Do those desperate people, who spend every penny they have and risk their lives crossing the Channel, have no other way of claiming asylum other than by getting to the UK?

This is a really, really difficult area and I don't envy those who are making the decisions.

Sadly, the fact is that the people who are travelling are typically NOT the MOST vulnerable. The most vulnerable are: 1) too poor to pay the smugglers; and/or 2) too frail to make the journey (hence the high proportion of youngish mails). That's why practical support on-the-ground in or near the areas people are fleeing is preferrable.

Sadly too, a significant proportion of the people arriving are not fleeing hellholes like Syria. They are from Albania or North Africa. Of course some will say we should admit those people too but we should be clear about the reality and what our policy objectives are.

(edited for typo)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(hence the high proportion of youngish mails).

Such a shame that postman isn't on the Shortage Occupation List that might therefore qualify for special visas

 

[brad465]

Sadly too, a significant proportion of the people arriving are not fleeing hellholes like Syria. They are from Albania or North Africa. Of course some will say we should admit those people too but we should be clear about the reality and what our policy objectives are.

(edited for typo)

North Africa isn't the most stable/sound of places right now; okay some countries like Morocco and Egypt are not too bad currently, but Libya and Tunisia are not very stable, with Libya in particular a failed state since NATO intervened in overthrowing Gaddafi, but not giving much thought to who/what should follow. Not fully aware of the situation in Albania, other than it has a sophisticated mafia network.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Genuine questions, because I do not know how the system works:

Do those desperate people, who spend every penny they have and risk their lives crossing the Channel, have no other way of claiming asylum other than by getting to the UK?

Depends. AIUI, for the most part, you do have to be on British soil in order to claim asylum in the UK (with a few exceptions: I believe the special schemes for Ukraine and Hong Kong allowed people to apply from abroad. If you can get a UK visitor's visa, you could probably fly here on a commercial flight and then claim asylum while you're here, but that requires paperwork and being able to get a visitor's visa.

If there is not, then setting up processing centres in mainland Europe seems a logical and compassionate step, but how would this actually work? If such a centre was established at say Calais, would it not simply become a magnet for even larger numbers of refugees/migrants,

That is exactly the problem. Setting up safe routes and the ability to apply from Europe sounds nice, but you have to account for the problem that, the easier you make it to claim asylum, the more people will do so, and at some point you have to accept that it's not physically possible to give asylum to everyone who would qualify for it and who would apply for it if they could: Unpleasant though it is, you have to have some way of deciding who you are going to take and who you are going to turn away Until you've answered that problem, saying 'safe routes' is just a slogan, not a workable policy.

It never ceases to surprise, and sadden me, that people take such a dangerous way to reaching the UK, and I too am deeply concerned by the tone and harshness of the Government's latest proposals (although, Gary Lineker please note, they are not in any way comparable to Germany in the 1930s), but at the same time every country has the right to control who enters it. How that is done is no simple matter, even for an island nation such as ours.

Indeed. For what it's worth, I don't particularly like what the Government are proposing to do but I regard it as sadly necessary: I wish there was an alternative, but I don't believe there is, and to that extent I respect the Government for doing what is required, while Labour and the LibDems are just standing on the sidelines, shouting about how bad the Government's proposals are while not actually offering any workable alternative.

 

[dosxuk]

I too am deeply concerned by the tone and harshness of the Government's latest proposals (although, Gary Lineker please note, they are not in any way comparable to Germany in the 1930s)

Many people seem to be thinking that Lineker was commenting on their proposals. He wasn't. He was commenting on the language used to describe and justify those proposals - something that very much is comparable to 1930's Germany. Unfortunately his argument that we should stop dehumanising the people involved ("stop the asylum seekers" has a much more human feel than "stop the boats") has been completely lost in the "Gary Lineker called the Tories Nazi's" strawman.

 

[yorksrob]

What we have to remember is there are two sides to people moving: one is the push factor, the other is the pull factor. Hardly anyone talks about the push factors, which is strife/hardship/war in the country of origin. Perhaps we and other developed countries should be looking at foreign policy to either support countries where people are coming from to improve them enough that they feel they don't need to leave, and/or not interfere in them in a negative way that forces them out (admittingly quite a few of these are in hindsight for now, such as foreign military campaigns without an exit strategy, or fuelling the economy of a dictatorship which then uses that power to invade neighbours). We won't be able to outright fix it, but it's important to be aware there are two sides, not one. Either that or we turn the UK into a such a dump that the pull factor for people coming here disappears as by comparison we're not as attractive, but somehow I don't think that will go down well with anyone.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people travelling this route are from countries such as Afghanistan and Iran. All the while such countries are run by religious fanatics, it seems hard to see the push factors disappearing (and we all know how successful outside attempts to change such forms of Government tend to be).

 

[GusB]

Well, it appears that the current conservative plans on migration have widespread approval...

...among the European far right!

Europe’s far right praise UK’s illegal migration bill

Alternative für Deutschland leaders were among those lauding Sunak’s bill, while other EU figures raised doubts about its legality

www.theguardian.com

European far-right leaders have praised Rishi Sunak’s illegal immigration bill, after a senior EU official repeated her doubts about the legality of the plans.

“Bravo,” wrote the Alternative für Deutschland party on social media. “Way to go! The current [British] government plans now to deny asylum to illegal immigrants and fly them out to Rwanda,” the party wrote on Facebook, saying Germany should follow this approach. “When will we finally have it?”

Éric Zemmour, the French far-right commentator, who came fourth in the race to succeed President Emmanuel Macron last year, also praised Sunak’s new policy. “The message is clear,” he wrote on Twitter. “Congratulations to the British prime minister who, unlike Macron’s government, has chosen to protect his people against submersion by migrants,” said Zemmour, a proponent of the “great replacement theory” that Muslim immigrants are replacing native Europeans.


Italian far-right leader Matteo Salvini retweeted a tweet by Sunak that had been translated into Italian and set out the government’s messaging on the bill, including the line, “if you arrive illegally in the UK, you can’t claim asylum”. Salvini, who is Italy’s deputy prime minister and heads the far-right League party, described the policy as “harsh, but fair”.

Since when did we bow down to these idiots?

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

[Broucek]

Well, it appears that the current conservative plans on migration have widespread approval...

...among the European far right!

To be fair, the fact that some nasty people like a policy does not in itself make the policy bad

 

[nw1]

To be fair, the fact that some nasty people like a policy does not in itself make the policy bad

Does the mainstream continental European centre-right approve?

That I think would be the acid test.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does the mainstream continental European centre-right approve?

That I think would be the acid test.

No, the acid test of a policy is: What impact is it likely to have? Is it likely to achieve its aims? Does it have any good or bad side effects? Are the aims of the policy in themselves good?

Who else happens to agree or disagree with the policy is interesting and may be a bit informative - particularly if you're talking about people who have some kind of expertise - but it's not a test of whether or not the policy is good. I mean - I bet you wouldn't try to assess whether some decision of the German Government related to internal German affairs and with little direct bearing on the UK is good or not by checking which UK parties approve of it, would you? You'd look at that decision on its merits. So why should it be any different the other way round?

 

[edwin_m]

No, the acid test of a policy is: What impact is it likely to have? Is it likely to achieve its aims? Does it have any good or bad side effects? Are the aims of the policy in themselves good?

You're getting dangerously close to saying the end justifies the means.

 

[Broucek]

You're getting dangerously close to saying the end justifies the means.

I just read the post from @edwin_m He really isn't....

 

[brad465]

Not sure whether this a parody or not:

https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1634139219932192768

Getting There. You won't see this in the MSM.


Image of the Times' report about the UK economy

 

[Gloster]

More of the usual story. Dame Caroline Spelman has been appointed to the board of Natural England, which is responsible for the protection and improvement of England’s environment. This is the same Caroline Spelman who planned to sell the Forestry Commission when she was Environment Secretary.

 

[yorksrob]

More of the usual story. Dame Caroline Spelman has been appointed to the board of Natural England, which is responsible for the protection and improvement of England’s environment. This is the same Caroline Spelman who planned to sell the Forestry Commission when she was Environment Secretary.

Jobs for the girls

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

This so called "government" thinks that boats in the channel are a priority of the British people.

I've endured a year of railway strikes before the pandemic, then after the pandemic intermittent strikes going on and on to the present day, along with cuts to services, cuts to rolling stock.

We have a Prime Minister who thinks the countries priorities are boats.

The sooner him and his party are gone, the better. Good riddance