New Tory Leader

[KiwiScot 1,459]

On 23/04/2024 at 14:21, Yellow Fever said:

Rwanda flights in July?

That' a little bit of an optimistic date I think to send the Tory party into exile.

So June is the time to go then

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

On 23/04/2024 at 14:21, Yellow Fever said:

Rwanda flights in July?

That' a little bit of an optimistic date I think to send the Tory party into exile.

 

 

How long does it take to get an appeal before the ECHR? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

The Metro today

[Fen Canary 859]

14 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The Metro today

Worked in Australia. If the asylum seekers know there’s no hope of being settled in Britain it does remove the incentive of trying to get across. It also needs an increased Navy presence in the Channel to intercept any that do try and get across

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

33 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Worked in Australia. If the asylum seekers know there’s no hope of being settled in Britain it does remove the incentive of trying to get across. It also needs an increased Navy presence in the Channel to intercept any that do try and get across

The BBC interviewed a lot of refugees in France yesterday. They thought a 1 in 50 chance of going to Rwanda was worth it. That's of course if it gets that far. It will end up in the courts. 

[Fen Canary 859]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The BBC interviewed a lot of refugees in France yesterday. They thought a 1 in 50 chance of going to Rwanda was worth it. That's of course if it gets that far. It will end up in the courts. 

Where does the 2% chance of deportation come from? If a few do start getting sent over then all of a sudden it does become a much less attractive proposition.

Even if it costs more per asylum seeker to send them to Rwanda, if it severely reduces the numbers trying to cross then it will be cheaper in the long run 

[A Load of Squit 5,203]

45 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Worked in Australia. If the asylum seekers know there’s no hope of being settled in Britain it does remove the incentive of trying to get across. It also needs an increased Navy presence in the Channel to intercept any that do try and get across

Did it?

 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

25 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Where does the 2% chance of deportation come from? If a few do start getting sent over then all of a sudden it does become a much less attractive proposition.

Even if it costs more per asylum seeker to send them to Rwanda, if it severely reduces the numbers trying to cross then it will be cheaper in the long run 

Even cheaper still, if we gave each one £100,000 to go to Rwanda..... and likely to get more takers!

I'm actually rather pleased this is now going to be tried. If as seems quite likely it will have little to no impact on the numbers over the summer (not that the existing channel life threatening and asylum centre deterrent doesn't already exist) then very clearly the 'deterrent' effect will of largely failed, the righties fox shot and we can all move on to more sensible policies in time for the GE.

[Fen Canary 859]

20 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Did it?

 

Yes. Numbers trying to access the country by boat dropped when the policy was first introduced, increased substantially when it was repealed, then massively reduced again when it was reinstated 

[Fen Canary 859]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Even cheaper still, if we gave each one £100,000 to go to Rwanda..... and likely to get more takers!

I'm actually rather pleased this is now going to be tried. If as seems quite likely it will have little to no impact on the numbers over the summer (not that the existing channel life threatening and asylum centre deterrent doesn't already exist) then very clearly the 'deterrent' effect will of largely failed, the righties fox shot and we can all move on to more sensible policies in time for the GE.

What are those sensible policies? How do you prevent those from making the journey? 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

16 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

What are those sensible policies? How do you prevent those from making the journey? 

Easy - You make other more sensible options to claim asylum or ways to cross available (in France) and claim without the risk of the small boats and people smugglers. Then you can be tough (Rwanda) with any 'queue' jumpers if there are proper alternatives! Most who try to come here have some sort of reason / link which is why as I understand most are actually successful in their claim!  

The boats are simply a symptom of the underlying issue.

[A Load of Squit 5,203]

28 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Yes. Numbers trying to access the country by boat dropped when the policy was first introduced, increased substantially when it was repealed, then massively reduced again when it was reinstated 

So it didn't stop the boats.

[A Load of Squit 5,203]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Easy - You make other more sensible options to claim asylum or ways to cross available (in France) and claim without the risk of the small boats and people smugglers. Then you can be tough (Rwanda) with any 'queue' jumpers if there are proper alternatives! Most who try to come here have some sort of reason / link which is why as I understand most are actually successful in their claim!  

The boats are simply a symptom of the underlying issue.

The majority of asylum seekers enter Australia by plane.

[Fen Canary 859]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

So it didn't stop the boats.

Zero boats in 2021, seven boats in 2022, four boats in 2023, compared to over three hundred boats in 2013. If we get a reduction on that scale I think most would class the policy as a success wouldn’t you? 

[Fen Canary 859]

14 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Easy - You make other more sensible options to claim asylum or ways to cross available (in France) and claim without the risk of the small boats and people smugglers. Then you can be tough (Rwanda) with any 'queue' jumpers if there are proper alternatives! Most who try to come here have some sort of reason / link which is why as I understand most are actually successful in their claim!  

The boats are simply a symptom of the underlying issue.

So you think France is going to look after them while they go through the British system (and numerous appeals)? And France will stop those whose applications have failed from crossing the Channel? They’ve got enough of their own they don’t want they’re hardly going to house the ones aiming for the UK as well, especially if Le Pen ends up in charge 

[jhubs 12]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Zero boats in 2021, seven boats in 2022, four boats in 2023, compared to over three hundred boats in 2013. If we get a reduction on that scale I think most would class the policy as a success wouldn’t you? 

Do you think there might possibly be some geographical differences between Australia and surrounding oceans vs. the English channel that could influence boat numbers?

[A Load of Squit 5,203]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Zero boats in 2021, seven boats in 2022, four boats in 2023, compared to over three hundred boats in 2013. If we get a reduction on that scale I think most would class the policy as a success wouldn’t you? 

If. 

[Fen Canary 859]

8 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

The majority of asylum seekers enter Australia by plane.

This is very true. What’s your point?

It was a policy designed to stop those making the dangerous journey by boat, and it’s a policy that was largely successful 

[Fen Canary 859]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

If. 

So you’ll agree it’s a policy that has been successful in the past? 

[Herman 9,818]

40 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

What are those sensible policies? How do you prevent those from making the journey? 

Unfortunately some are going to have to review and reverse some of the stupid decisions made in the name of brexit. 

Are people ready to accept responsibility for their actions yet? 

[Fen Canary 859]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

Unfortunately some are going to have to review and reverse some of the stupid decisions made in the name of brexit. 

Are people ready to accept responsibility for their actions yet? 

At some point you’re going to have to find a new bogeyman than just Brexit to explain every UK problem.

Asylum is an issue right across the EU, was Brexit also the cause of it in France, Italy, Germany….?

[A Load of Squit 5,203]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’ll agree it’s a policy that has been successful in the past? 

The two countries are not comparable, the Aussies has some reduction in people coming by boat as there is an alternative. We don't have an alternative.

 

[jhubs 12]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

The two countries are not comparable, the Aussies has some reduction in people coming by boat as there is an alternative. We don't have an alternative.

 

The data also shows that the reduction in numbers attempting to arrive in Australia by boat was more tightly linked to the introduction of pushing back boats to outside of territorial waters or returning directly to the arrivals countries of origin rather than being linked to the introduction of offshore processing...

[Fen Canary 859]

5 minutes ago, jhubs said:

The data also shows that the reduction in numbers attempting to arrive in Australia by boat was more tightly linked to the introduction of pushing back boats to outside of territorial waters or returning directly to the arrivals countries of origin rather than being linked to the introduction of offshore processing...

So we should use the Navy to prevent the boats from entering British waters is what you’re saying? Along with instant deportation to their countries of origin where possible? Sounds good to me 

Edited April 25 by Fen Canary

[jhubs 12]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

So we should use the Navy to prevent the boats from entering British waters is what you’re saying? Sounds good to me 

Yes, I'm sure with current geopolitical issues that would be the best use of the Navy.

I have zero issue with more robust measures such as offshore processing, push backs etc once more sensible policies have been put in place. If 80% of applications are accepted anyway then we probably need to find ways of processing those applications from places that mean a boat crossing isn't incentivised. If we have measures such as that in place then dealing with "queue jumpers" (not sure if that's the right turn of phrase) by exception with those sorts of deterrents seems more reasonable.

But the current scheme as designed is stupidly expensive, impractical and is capped at a miniscule number (including resettling asylum seekers from Rwanda into the UK so barely denting net immigration numbers).

It's just red meat for wavering Tory/Reform voters after trying absolutely nothing workable to solve the problem beforehand.

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

53 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you think France is going to look after them while they go through the British system (and numerous appeals)? And France will stop those whose applications have failed from crossing the Channel? They’ve got enough of their own they don’t want they’re hardly going to house the ones aiming for the UK as well, especially if Le Pen ends up in charge 

They are in France already - encamped along the coast. 

I'm sure France would be delighted if there was a sensible method to move them on! 

As to Le Pen - I'm sure she'd just wave them on their way to the UK. Not her problem.

More pertinently - I note the EU has just agreed a sharing out scheme for irregular immigrants - largely arriving into its southern states.

Edited April 25 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,818]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

At some point you’re going to have to find a new bogeyman than just Brexit to explain every UK problem.

Asylum is an issue right across the EU, was Brexit also the cause of it in France, Italy, Germany….?

Only until you hold your hands up and admit it has made the situation far worse. Deal? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,576]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Only until you hold your hands up and admit it has made the situation far worse. Deal? 

Nope; admitting that would be a lie .Things just aren't that much worse because of Brexit compared to what was predicted by the most ardent opponents. The Liz Truss mini-budget episode showed quite clearly that it's actually not that hard to send an economy completely off a cliff, and Brexit didn't have a smidgen of the effect of that mini-budget.

[Barbe bleu 832]

5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

How long does it take to get an appeal before the ECHR? 

Much longer than that to get a hearing.  The ECHR can be legally ignored and probably will be so I don't see this as  big factor

[Barbe bleu 832]

5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The Metro today

What a sh*t cartoon.   Why would He Man be on a Thundercats duvet cover?  Do it again.