The Positive Brexit Thread

[littleyellowbirdie 2,574]

25 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yet France takes on considerably more asylum claims than the UK and both pale in comparison to Germany. Moreover, the UK - due to general incompetence, has a backlog of over 150,000 cases. The issue is how badly organised we are, and it is getting worse due to said government incompetence.

Top facts from the latest statistics on refugees and people seeking asylum - Refugee Council

The notion that mainland Europe is fobbing numbers off on the UK doesn't really wash that well, not to forget that the EU still doesn't take on that many relative to countries adjacent to crisis with Turkey and Palestine being particularly obvious cases.

Actually, as a proportion of applicants, the UK accepts vastly more than France. France rejects the majority, while the UK accepts the majority who apply. 87% in the UK get asylum or humanitarian protection, but that's simply because our system is geared to reflect the fact we have no mechanisms to remove fake asylum seekers.

Not only that, but once France has rejected, it does nothing to enforce deportation, preferring to just let them go where they please.

The UK shouldn't have anybody applying directly if international law on the subject was fit for purpose.

Edited July 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Actually, as a proportion of applicants, the UK accepts vastly more than France. France rejects the majority, while the UK accepts the majority who apply.

Not only that, but once France has rejected, it does nothing to enforce deportation, preferring to just let them go where they please.

The UK shouldn't have anybody applying directly if international law on the subject was fit for purpose.

Come now LYB - France can't be that bad - they let you stay 😉

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,574]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

Come now LYB - France can't be that bad - they let you stay 😉

 

Funny - not .

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Actually, as a proportion of applicants, the UK accepts vastly more than France. France rejects the majoriy, while the UK accepts the majority who apply.

The UK shouldn't have anybody applying directly if international law on the subject was fit for purpose.

You're talking about the number of cases that are accepted, as opposed to the number that are processed. Furthermore, most of the huge backlog I have mentioned has come around in the course of the last few years.

Due to incompetence, the UK has the second largest backlog in Europe, just slightly lower than that of Germany, which takes on a far higher number of asylum claims. This link also shows we do not process claims anywhere near as quickly. France accepts a lower number of asylum seekers than the UK whilst, as you say, rejecting a far larger proportion and handling a far greater number. What does that tell you about UK procedures?

The UK’s asylum backlog - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

Edited July 24, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,574]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

You're talking about the number of cases that are accepted, as opposed to the number that are processed. Furthermore, most of the huge backlog I have mentioned has come around in the course of the last few years.

Due to incompetence, the UK has the second largest backlog in Europe, just slightly lower than that of Germany, which takes on a far higher number of asylum claims. This link also shows we do not process claims anywhere near as quickly.

The UK’s asylum backlog - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

The number processed is simply down to geography. People just walk into France having walked through God knows how many other countries on the way. That's not our responsibility. There's no way that the vast majority of ours are genuinely valid while the vast majority of France's are genuinely bogus.

There's no valid comparison between processing problems in the UK and on the continent. On the continent, denied applicants are simply told to move on and then ignored until they go away; once they get to the UK, they're our problem whether they're real or bogus as we have no legal mechanisms to remove them so any rejections finish up costing a fortune legally. That's why illegal immigrants are resented in the UK so much, not that they're not resented throughout Europe as well.

What's your excuse for France rejecting 75% that get there?

Edited July 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The number processed is simply down to geography. People just walk into France having walked through God knows how many other countries on the way. That's not our responsibility. There's no way that the vast majority of ours are genuinely valid while the vast majority of France's are genuinely bogus.

What's your excuse for France rejecting 90% that get there?

So the French are better organised and handle applications far faster than the UK? As opposed to the UK whose government made things even worse? It spoke volumes that Braverman couldn't even explain under questioning how an asylum seeker was supposed to even apply for asylum in the UK.

She's unfit for purpose.

Suella Braverman fails to explain how theoretical asylum seeker could get to UK safely and legally | Politics News | Sky News

[littleyellowbirdie 2,574]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

So the French are better organised and handle applications far faster than the UK? As opposed to the UK whose government made things even worse? It spoke volumes that Braverman couldn't even explain under questioning how an asylum seeker was supposed to even apply for asylum in the UK.

She's unfit for purpose.

Suella Braverman fails to explain how theoretical asylum seeker could get to UK safely and legally | Politics News | Sky News

No; they have simpler rules reflective of the fact they can reject and then forget about them; in the UK, every applicant is a problem for the state because there's no way of getting rid of those rejected who resist leaving the country. They just finish up costing the state more and more in legal fees.

It's not Braverman's fault that International law on the subject is unfit for purpose.

We don't want safe and legal routes for applications to the UK when we have no legal mechanism for removing failed applicants who don't want to be removed.

Edited July 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No; they have simpler rules reflective of the fact they can reject and then forget about them; in the UK, every applicant is a problem for the state because there's no way of getting rid of those rejected who resist leaving the country. They just finish up costing the state more and more in legal fees.

Those simpler rules mean they're easier to apply. From what you're saying, France has an enforcement problem in case of rejection (as does the UK), but does not remotely have the issue the UK has with issuing asylum decisions in the first place as decisions are handled far more swiftly on average.

We've gone across each other slightly here, you're looking at enforcement of the asylum decision where I'm more squarely looking at getting to asylum and how well organised that part is, and tangentially you can also include facilities for asylum seekers who make it here (Manston, for example) in that.

Asylum seekers may cost a lot in legal fees, but they also cost a lot in other ways, especially when we're taking at least twice as long as other EU countries to make an initial asylum decision!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,574]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Those simpler rules mean they're easier to apply. From what you're saying, France has an enforcement problem in case of rejection (as does the UK), but does not remotely have the issue the UK has with issuing asylum decisions in the first place as decisions are handled far more swiftly on average.

We've gone across each other slightly here, you're looking at enforcement of the asylum decision where I'm more squarely looking at getting to asylum and how well organised that part is, and tangentially you can also include facilities for asylum seekers who make it here (Manston, for example) in that.

Asylum seekers may cost a lot in legal fees, but they also cost a lot in other ways, especially when we're taking at least twice as long as other EU countries to make an initial asylum decision!

It's not an enforcement problem. They've made a decision to turn a blind eye to people lingering in the country illegally, which works if you can make a hostile environment that persuades people to just go elsewhere.With the UK, the lack of land borders makes it impossible to pretend that they'll just go away of their own accord.

Edited July 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

On 04/07/2023 at 15:04, Herman said:

Farage did actually start all this and the rest of us are just enjoying the schadenfreude. 

As per your enjoyment was short-lived:

I hope he goes ahead and sues both Coutts and the NatWest 👍

Chortle, guffaw...

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 22/07/2023 at 08:45, Herman said:

 

I wouldn't have thought you'd be supporting people owning second homes, Herman. Youre  outed as that bloke who votes for Reform party, I know it.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 23/07/2023 at 15:02, dylanisabaddog said:

This is my dog's artistic view of post Brexit Britain. She has suffered for her art and I feel her pain. The Tate have offered £100k but she's holding out for more because she thinks the Yanks are even more stupid than us. And, let's face it, it's better than anything else in The Tate. 

 

Andrew Tate, so famous they named a national gallery after him.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 23/07/2023 at 17:33, Surfer said:

" 48% of those who voted in the EU referendum wanted to stay in the EU, but they were stripped of their 'true citizenship' of the EU en masse along with those who did, amounting to a form of collective punishment. "

Let me help 

"48% of those who voted in the EU referendum wanted to stay in the EU, but they were stripped of their 'true citizenship' of the EU en masse along with those who did, amounting to a form of collective self-punishment. In every aspect of society, we must recognize that the people have spoken, and honour that decision. And, as so many who voted to leave have since died, it is our sacred duty to honour their memories and not allow the people who remain, or have come of age, an opportunity to speak on this subject again"

 

 

So no Remainers died, eh Surfer? Just proves that God takes all the good ones.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

13 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Nothing else needs to be added. And it should make it crystal clear why Priti Patel and Suella Braverman are and were dangerously incompetent and unfit for purpose.

We should have invested in better and more facilities for handling asylum issues, not try to fob it off on France/the rest of Europe. As much as I'm not always a fan of the state employing more people, I'd think there's always room for border guards and more staff for handling asylum enquiries!

Wait, what?? The nice lady in the video says she has been nicely treated in Greece and that is enough to trigger a tirade against the British government? Jeez.

Noted, that of all the cabinet members you could have a go at, you choose two non-white women. Misogynist and racist in one sentence. Strewth.

[Herman 9,817]

Jools, this lady knows what she is talking about. Read her points. @Frances_Coppola

The BBC caved to pressure from the right wing, yet again, but these are the facts, as explained simply in the following thread.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wait, what?? The nice lady in the video says she has been nicely treated in Greece and that is enough to trigger a tirade against the British government? Jeez.

Noted, that of all the cabinet members you could have a go at, you choose two non-white women. Misogynist and racist in one sentence. Strewth.

You spelt "two completely incompetent Home Secretaries" wrong. In fact, one of them's having a fine go at ballsing it up twice! 😉

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

59 minutes ago, Herman said:

Jools, this lady knows what she is talking about. Read her points. @Frances_Coppola

The BBC caved to pressure from the right wing, yet again, but these are the facts, as explained simply in the following thread.

 

NatWest Group chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, has also apologised to Farage for comments made about him by Coutts.. Who's she caved into? Heads are rolling at Coutts too - What for I wonder? They're in the wrong, Herman, and it should concern you that anybody can lose their bank account over their political beliefs.

[Herman 9,817]

No, Jools. He lost his account because he's poor. The Dame's apology was a perfect non-apology where he still didn't get his account back. Do you honestly think a bank like Coutts doesn't take money from people more awful than Farage? The difference being is how much cash they have.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

No, Jools. He lost his account because he's poor. The Dame's apology was a perfect non-apology where he still didn't get his account back. Do you honestly think a bank like Coutts doesn't take money from people more awful than Farage? The difference being is how much cash they have.

I've read the Coutts dossier and as far as I can see they didn't debank him because he didn't have enough cash - in fact it explicitly says he satisfies their requirements -- Farage was offered a personal account at NatWest, but not a business account...

Coutts closed both his personal and business accounts.

It's all about his political beliefs.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

40 minutes ago, Herman said:

No, Jools. He lost his account because he's poor.

[Herman 9,817]

He's just a poor boy nobody loves him
He's just a poor boy from a poor family,
Spare him his life from this monstrosity
Easy come, easy go, will you let him have his exclusive Coutts bank account?

NO!!

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

If we accept the idea that he had his bank account taken away due to his beliefs and that this is wrong then "Christian" bakers can't refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals then, right?

[Barbe bleu 832]

57 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If we accept the idea that he had his bank account taken away due to his beliefs and that this is wrong then "Christian" bakers can't refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals then, right?

I'm glad you brought that up that academically investing case.

No one (christian or otherwise) can lawfully refuse the bake a cake for homosexuals unless they would also refuse to bake a cake for anyone else.

In the case you are thinking of http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/49.html the judges found that there was no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality as the bakers would have refused to bake that cake (or more correctly refused to put the message on it) for anyone - the fact that they were asked to do it by a guy man was irrelevant to the refusal. As the bakers would have treated everyone the same there was no breach of the equalities act.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm glad you brought that up that academically investing case.

No one (christian or otherwise) can lawfully refuse the bake a cake for homosexuals unless they would also refuse to bake a cake for anyone else.

In the case you are thinking of the judges found that there was no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality as the bakers would have refused to bake that cake (or more correctly refused to put the message on it) for anyone - the fact that they were asked to do it by a homosexual couple was irrelevant to the refusal. As the bakers would have treated everyone the same there was no breach of rhe equalities act.

Aye, that was the loophole, basically. They would still have been discriminatory if they didn't bake the cake, but it was the missive on it. That said, he appealed to the EHCR and that turned it down too.

UK supreme court backs bakery that refused to make gay marriage cake | UK supreme court | The Guardian

‘Gay cake’ row: man loses seven-year battle against Belfast bakery | European court of human rights | The Guardian

Conversely you had the B&B owners who lost the appeal at the Supreme Court.

Christian B&B owners lose Supreme Court fight | News | Law Gazette

[BigFish 1,988]

On 18/07/2023 at 18:44, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Yeah right - The EU loving media, especially the BBC, 'actual substance'... 🙃 I'll have some of the substances you're on please 😃 

Here's a more accurate summary regarding the CPTPP deal https://capx.co/cptpp-membership-is-worth-much-more-to-britain-than-0-08-of-gdp/

As with all of these type of articles it is pretty much fact free, instead relying on supposition like "if the the US joins". I'll give you a clue, the US has no intention of joining. The thing is the hit to the country since 2016 is real, while the benefits are all notional.

[Well b back 3,260]

9 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

NatWest Group chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, has also apologised to Farage for comments made about him by Coutts.. Who's she caved into? Heads are rolling at Coutts too - What for I wonder? They're in the wrong, Herman, and it should concern you that anybody can lose their bank account over their political beliefs.

Pity the t*** can’t apologise for destroying the U.K. 

[BigFish 1,988]

10 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

NatWest Group chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, has also apologised to Farage for comments made about him by Coutts.. Who's she caved into? Heads are rolling at Coutts too - What for I wonder? They're in the wrong, Herman, and it should concern you that anybody can lose their bank account over their political beliefs.

NatWest apologised for the language used.

NatWest didn't, and didn't need to, apologise for removing Farage's bank account. Coutts will not be taking him back as a customer for commercial reasons, although he can apply for a NatWest account.

So few people watch his programme on GB News he needs the attention though.

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

18 minutes ago, BigFish said:

NatWest apologised for the language used.

NatWest didn't, and didn't need to, apologise for removing Farage's bank account. Coutts will not be taking him back as a customer for commercial reasons, although he can apply for a NatWest account.

So few people watch his programme on GB News he needs the attention though.

 

 

What we did learn is that he's paid up his mortgage so the next time he comes up with a grift and tries to dupe the gullible into giving him some money we can suggest he tries equity release.

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

NatWest apologised for the language used.

NatWest didn't, and didn't need to, apologise for removing Farage's bank account. Coutts will not be taking him back as a customer for commercial reasons, although he can apply for a NatWest account.

So few people watch his programme on GB News he needs the attention though.

 

 

I think thats true.  But if we are being fair the 'commercial reasons' included coutts making the assessment that Farage's values did not accord with their own. It wasn't just about him not having enough cash, they might have been OK with that had it not been for his public standing:

"The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit of retention the decision was taken to exit upon repayment of an existing mortgage."

I am still of the belief that this should have been ignored, but since it wasn't it it important to be completely open about this and to have the debate about just how much a person can say and do before they get civic sanctions against them.

[Surfer 1,547]

17 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

So no Remainers died, eh Surfer? Just proves that God takes all the good ones.

Of course they did. The point being, now that Brexiteers got the vote they wanted, we can never let the people vote on this issue again. 

With the evidence that Brexit, like Communism, is a total con,  it’s clear a large majority would vote to rejoin to EU. But also like Communism the excuse is it just hasn’t been implemented properly so round and round the drain hole this once respected country goes as a desperate ruling party sabotages every remaining bridge to the past economic success, truth and decency.