- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
UK Politics General Discussion
Matt.GC
TS Member
Fantastic. Just like our Nige, you've identified some problems.
So, on to the solutions then. What needs to happen? What can be done that's practical? Let's hear it.
Here's a few.....
1. If you're a criminal you'll be deported. Arriving illegally in a small boat makes you a criminal
2. If you have no paperwork (passport, identity, anything) to prove where you are from, you're likely to be detained/deported. Stop economic migrants claiming to be otherwise
3. Have a proper, grown-up, agreement across the EU (inc UK) where we SHARE the asylum burden. Once registered if you then choose to risk your life coming to the UK you'll be immediately returned
1. Vote winner. 2, 3. Vote winner. So why doesn't anyone do it?? I honestly have no idea. But I do know ONE vote winning idea that Nige has come up with - put business people in charge of councils instead of career politicians. Maybe a few of them will be slightly less bankrupt
1. If you're a criminal you'll be deported. Arriving illegally in a small boat makes you a criminal
2. If you have no paperwork (passport, identity, anything) to prove where you are from, you're likely to be detained/deported. Stop economic migrants claiming to be otherwise
3. Have a proper, grown-up, agreement across the EU (inc UK) where we SHARE the asylum burden. Once registered if you then choose to risk your life coming to the UK you'll be immediately returned
1. Vote winner. 2, 3. Vote winner. So why doesn't anyone do it?? I honestly have no idea. But I do know ONE vote winning idea that Nige has come up with - put business people in charge of councils instead of career politicians. Maybe a few of them will be slightly less bankrupt
jon81uk
TS Member
Again, until there is a proper way to claim asylum such as a processing centre in France, arriving illegally may just make you an asylum seeker. This is already the case that it is arriving illegally, but until there is a method to actually claim asylum without arriving illegally what is the actual solution?
See #3 above. Request asylum in the first safe country. Asylum seekers should not get to pick and choose which country they'd like to be in. That's not how the system - or life - works. Otherwise I'd be claiming income support and requesting Marbella - plus a Ferrari to get around in.
jon81uk
TS Member
and again, what is your actual solution for enforcing that happening, we left the EU and many of our politicians chose not to engage with the EU when we were members, we kept electing ineffective MEPs who didn't even attend parliament.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Here's a few.....
1. If you're a criminal you'll be deported. Arriving illegally in a small boat makes you a criminal
2. If you have no paperwork (passport, identity, anything) to prove where you are from, you're likely to be detained/deported. Stop economic migrants claiming to be otherwise
3. Have a proper, grown-up, agreement across the EU (inc UK) where we SHARE the asylum burden. Once registered if you then choose to risk your life coming to the UK you'll be immediately returned
1. Vote winner. 2, 3. Vote winner. So why doesn't anyone do it?? I honestly have no idea. But I do know ONE vote winning idea that Nige has come up with - put business people in charge of councils instead of career politicians. Maybe a few of them will be slightly less bankrupt
You literally just made Matt’s point for him, you haven’t produced a single workable plan.
1) who you deporting them to, there is no requirement for France to take them back and you won’t know their origin country as they won’t tell you.
2) Without the passports again where are you deporting to?
3) We had the EU agreement when we were in the EU, We left and as Brexit supporters kept saying “Brexit means Brexit”. why do you think the EU would be interested in an agreement unless there is something in it for them.
So none of your ideas are workable (hence why they have never been done).
So what’s the plan?
There is no requirement for France to take them back....? So what - anyone who gets here has a right to stay?? We're doomed!
We have to stop this stupid nonsense and literally just put them on a boat back to a beach in France - they obviously can't police them, at least unless they're offering life jackets. What do I hear?? That would be illegal. Touche!
I welcome asylum seekers (and their lives must have been horrid). As should the 28 EU countries (inc Hungary). But not a pick and choose where they risk their lives to get here.
Where some see problems, others see solutions and opportunities.
We have to stop this stupid nonsense and literally just put them on a boat back to a beach in France - they obviously can't police them, at least unless they're offering life jackets. What do I hear?? That would be illegal. Touche!
I welcome asylum seekers (and their lives must have been horrid). As should the 28 EU countries (inc Hungary). But not a pick and choose where they risk their lives to get here.
Where some see problems, others see solutions and opportunities.
Dobba
TS Member
You've offered none of either
Dave
TS Founding Member
No France does not have to take them back if there is no agreement (like the one we had when we were part of the EU).
We also can’t unilaterally put them on a boat and drop them off at Calais.
Let’s just extrapolate out that line of thinking. UK says “all people who arrive on a boat will be assumed to have come from France and will be forcibly placed on French beaches.
What’s to stop France saying, “OK well we will assume all immigrants who claim to be from a former UK colony (quite a bit of the world), are a UK problem so we will forcibly place them on UK beaches.
See the issue there? As you have not provided a diplomatic solution what you end up with is a de facto military solution, which is why it has never happened. France would just place gun boats in the channel and the only way UK boats could forcibly land the refuges would be to engage militarily which is obviously never going to happen. That’s the reality today, it’s also the reality if Fibbing Farage got power.
The solution is to have an agreement with France to process claimants in France and take those with a legal right to reside in the UK. But the far right foam at the mouth if anyone suggests that…
Benzin
TS Member
Send them back to France so they can just attempt to come back over anyway.
Shame our politicians decided to be children with Brexit rather than adults. But that is general politics theses days, too busy trying one-upmanship each other to actually solve the issues the affect those struggling most.
I guess if politicians solved illegal immigration problems they'd have nothing to gee up the unwashed masses with.
Shame our politicians decided to be children with Brexit rather than adults. But that is general politics theses days, too busy trying one-upmanship each other to actually solve the issues the affect those struggling most.
I guess if politicians solved illegal immigration problems they'd have nothing to gee up the unwashed masses with.
It would be a start.... Are you saying France would use their military to stop people being returned to France but not from illegally leaving France.... I wholly agree there needs to be legal routes of asylum, but again (and AGAIN) this isn't pick'n'mix. If you were a true asylum seeker, you'd be happy to get some food, shelter and not be bombed or killed.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Yes they would, if a foreign country forcibly landed on their territory they would prevent that. And as I said, if we make a unilateral decision to return these people what stops France making a unilateral decision to forcibly send more over?
Just to be clear the asylum seekers are trying to get to the UK for various reasons and it isn’t all of them. It’s usually language, but can be because family are over here. The ones who have links to other European countries are heading there.
It’s just our language is universal and our previous Empire means a lot of people escaping these other countries have links to the UK. So it’s not that they are deciding the UK is the choicest dish on the menu (we don’t offer asylum seekers any particular support beyond the rest of Europe).
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
What exactly is the problem with allowing people to move freely and live and work where they feel safest? I'm really struggling to see the fundamental issue here.
It can't be about cost. We're spending a heck of a lot more in attempting to prevent the impossible, than we do on the asylum process.
It can't be about the strain on essential services, otherwise we'd be investing in them.
It can't be about benefit scrounging, or we'd allow them to work.
It can't be about not having enough jobs to go around, otherwise we'd be better focussing our attention on growing the economy and providing meaningful work for all.
Is it just because they're different?
It can't be about cost. We're spending a heck of a lot more in attempting to prevent the impossible, than we do on the asylum process.
It can't be about the strain on essential services, otherwise we'd be investing in them.
It can't be about benefit scrounging, or we'd allow them to work.
It can't be about not having enough jobs to go around, otherwise we'd be better focussing our attention on growing the economy and providing meaningful work for all.
Is it just because they're different?
Last edited:
Matt N
TS Member
In my personal opinion, immigration is perhaps given excessive oxygen as an issue at present.
I’m not saying that it’s not a valid issue to debate, or that there aren’t valid debate points around it. Illegal immigration is certainly an issue we need to keep a handle on, and I think there are valid points of debate around migration.
However, I think it’s wheeled out excessively by politicians as a red herring to distract from the true root causes of issues. It’s a lot easier for a politician to say “that migrant who came over on a small boat is stealing your [council house/NHS bed/benefits/insert public service here]!” and implement anti-immigration policies than it is for them to say “there’s a lack of public service provision due to long term underinvestment and low taxation” and call for a lock and stock change to the political system to better provide for public services. I don’t think immigration is a root cause of many of this country’s problems, but many politicians try and make it the sole issue in the political debate to an almost stifling degree.
With that being said, I don’t think many progressives, or people who are more pro-immigration, help by trying to shut down any debate around the issue entirely. Some people will instantly call anyone who expresses the vaguest concern about immigration a racist, a bigot and every insult under the sun rather than trying to have a civil debate about the issue, but this only repels people with concerns from trying to understand your point of view and drives them into the arms of the more hardline “anti” lobby. There are valid debate points around immigration, and trying to shut those down entirely by insulting people who express concerns is condescending and does not encourage them to support your point of view. I’ve long thought this about left-wing politics; there seems to be a line of thinking among left-wing politicians and supporters that you must 100% agree with the accepted left-wing point of view without expressing any concerns or they’ll vilify you as an “ist”, “ism”, or “phobe”. The left almost seems to think itself morally superior when that’s not necessarily the case; being left-wing or progressive is simply a political view and not some arbiter of moral superiority. It’s an awful lot more nuanced than an automatic “left-wing, progressive view = good and right-wing, conservative view = evil”, and there’s a huge amount of grey areas.
If they want to encourage people around to a left-wing point of view, the left should either come up with solutions to the concerns people express or calmly and civilly set out a positive argument explaining why people shouldn’t be concerned. As it is, I don’t think sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting down any debate on issues and hurling insults at those who aren’t 100% on board with the accepted left-wing viewpoint with no questions asked is doing much to further the left-wing/progressive cause.
I’m not saying that it’s not a valid issue to debate, or that there aren’t valid debate points around it. Illegal immigration is certainly an issue we need to keep a handle on, and I think there are valid points of debate around migration.
However, I think it’s wheeled out excessively by politicians as a red herring to distract from the true root causes of issues. It’s a lot easier for a politician to say “that migrant who came over on a small boat is stealing your [council house/NHS bed/benefits/insert public service here]!” and implement anti-immigration policies than it is for them to say “there’s a lack of public service provision due to long term underinvestment and low taxation” and call for a lock and stock change to the political system to better provide for public services. I don’t think immigration is a root cause of many of this country’s problems, but many politicians try and make it the sole issue in the political debate to an almost stifling degree.
With that being said, I don’t think many progressives, or people who are more pro-immigration, help by trying to shut down any debate around the issue entirely. Some people will instantly call anyone who expresses the vaguest concern about immigration a racist, a bigot and every insult under the sun rather than trying to have a civil debate about the issue, but this only repels people with concerns from trying to understand your point of view and drives them into the arms of the more hardline “anti” lobby. There are valid debate points around immigration, and trying to shut those down entirely by insulting people who express concerns is condescending and does not encourage them to support your point of view. I’ve long thought this about left-wing politics; there seems to be a line of thinking among left-wing politicians and supporters that you must 100% agree with the accepted left-wing point of view without expressing any concerns or they’ll vilify you as an “ist”, “ism”, or “phobe”. The left almost seems to think itself morally superior when that’s not necessarily the case; being left-wing or progressive is simply a political view and not some arbiter of moral superiority. It’s an awful lot more nuanced than an automatic “left-wing, progressive view = good and right-wing, conservative view = evil”, and there’s a huge amount of grey areas.
If they want to encourage people around to a left-wing point of view, the left should either come up with solutions to the concerns people express or calmly and civilly set out a positive argument explaining why people shouldn’t be concerned. As it is, I don’t think sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting down any debate on issues and hurling insults at those who aren’t 100% on board with the accepted left-wing viewpoint with no questions asked is doing much to further the left-wing/progressive cause.
Well language could be a draw, but having travelled to over 100 countries there are very few where you can't communicate in English. Or if you're claiming asylum, assimilate with the locals (in whatever country) and LEARN the local language/customs, etc.
Still not a pick'n'mix where you just choose. And as @Matt N hints to - I want the UK to do it's share, and welcome legitimate asylum seekers (as should the other EU28)
Still not a pick'n'mix where you just choose. And as @Matt N hints to - I want the UK to do it's share, and welcome legitimate asylum seekers (as should the other EU28)
Benzin
TS Member
Can this be extended to the expat type of immigrant as well?
Matt.GC
TS Member
You see, this was exactly my point. I'm not trying to have a go, but this is the exact problem with the over simplistic populist rhetoric of Farage.
You haven't offered a single solution or opportunity. I'm sure a solution for someone who is struggling with debt is to have the opportunity to win the lottery. I had my life mapped out when I was 10, all I had to do was become a midfielder for Man Utd, job done.
It's easy to go round saying all we have to do is turn a load of boats around and send them back to France, and then be audacious enough to ask the EU to negotiate with us on a deal after spending a decade of sticking out middle fingers up at them. Who is going to deport these people? Who is going to process them? What workforce is needed? How much is it going to cost? How is going to be paid for? How long will it take? What laws are in place? Who will sign an agreement with us, and why would they?
Whenever oversimplified populism drives policy when in power, it never goes very well. Weren't Trump's Tariffs supposed to make America Great Again? Did Boris, driving through those foam blocks, not 'Take Back Control' for us - before immediately proceeding to loose control of just about everything, including our national borders? How did solving crime by just locking people up and throwing away the key "simple as that" end up? All we had to do to "Stop the Boats" was getting a few jumbo jets and send them with a one way ticket to Rwanda didn't we?
Judging by how laughable Reforms "Contract" was at last years election, which read more like a red top tabloid opinion page wish list than a manifesto, and by how easily Nigel Farage and Richard Tice crumble in interviews under the slightest bit of scrutiny, these new Reform run councils are going to be extremely interesting.
I'm sure all the candidates were merrily stuffing letterboxes with leaflets promising low council tax, all the pot holes fixed, and regular bin collections before the local elections. I'd love to be a fly on the wall seeing them all sat there now looking through the files for the first time.
Too tired to complain anymore like a gammon 
How many boats do you need to turn back?? ONE. Possibly 10. People will give up very quickly!! Or, just going out on a whim here - don't escort them into UK waters then get picked up! Not suggesting to put anyone in danger, but if in French waters then taken back to France.
How many boats do you need to turn back?? ONE. Possibly 10. People will give up very quickly!! Or, just going out on a whim here - don't escort them into UK waters then get picked up! Not suggesting to put anyone in danger, but if in French waters then taken back to France.
Matt.GC
TS Member
I don't want to be rude but that is extremely naive. You can't seriously believe that if a mere 1-10 boats turn back-up on the French shores, suddenly the gangs will turn round to the refugees and say "well that's it, games up, we're shutting up shop and flogging our remaining dhingis. They'll be no UK for you guys I'm afraid. Refunds all round. Awe, don't worry little Jimmy it'll be ok, I've heard Duolingo can teach you French in no time."Too tired to complain anymore like a gammon
Blink and half a dozen probably slip through. Where are these hundreds of escort boats patrolling the waters going to come from? Where are the thousands of personnel going to come from? The UK border forces won't be allowed to roam around French waters. So it'd have to be the currently almost nonexistent Royal Navy. Even if a heavily indebted government presiding over a stagnating economy could find the £Billions needed to detect and intercept some small boats out at sea, I don't think being surrounded by a massive foreign naval presence in their own waters would be taken too kindly by the French.
It all sounds so easy when it's spouted from the safety of a GBNews studio surrounded by their mates. But I saw Farage grilled on this once and he just started banging on about "the problem is with you people in the mainstream media...." and Tice started saying some irrelevant stuff about the ECHR and "woke". No answers. No solutions. Just populist fantasy from the pair of them. And people lap it up.