Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I was thinking to start a new thread on something, but it is probably appropriate here. Because of all the Royal news, this has perhaps gone under the Radar somewhat:

Revealed: Suella Braverman sets Home Office ‘No boats crossing the Channel’ target

New home secretary upsets civil servants with speech on migrants, trashy TV and back-to-office call

www.theguardian.com

What I am interested in is not the actual article itself, or the issue of migrants per se, but this: who is actually running the country?

We all have a good laugh at 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' but actually its beginning to bother me a bit. Things like: 'The new home secretary has already prompted consternation among Home Office officials after telling them she wants to ban all small boats crossing the Channel....' Oh really! but we elect the government - we don't elect civil servants, so perhaps they should keep their views to themselves and do their fukcing job - which is what Patel and now Braverman tells them to do.

The other thing annoying me is this: 'During her address last week, Braverman – who is expected to adopt an even more hardline agenda than Patel – also prompted widespread discontent from thousands of Home Office staff by challenging their working practices.'

I was told to get my arce back into work some 14 months ago - so how come these 'civil servants' can just do what they want.

I see you’ve swallowed the cool aid.

Civil servants can’t change the laws. They can only do what is possible within the law.

Part of the problem is that they have to change direction every time there is a change in minister. They now have to learn what Braverman wants to achieve and will work towards them within the law.

The civil servants will have a damn sight more love for the country than the current populist MPs, including Braverman.

Braverman will have no clue on how to stop the migrants stopping the channel as we can’t influence what France do anymore, following Brexit.

France did have a duty to kind of sort out the issue when we were both in the EU. Now, they don’t give a shit. Why would they?

Would the U.K. guve a shit about migrants travelling out of the country?

The two choices about these “dinghy people” is chatting shit and sending them to to moon/Rwanda or solving the problem at source and processing their paperwork whilst they are outside the UK.

 

[El_george]

They can only do what is possible within the law.

Well that is a totally different issue. The plane flight to Rwanda was cleared to go by the highest court in the land... it should have gone. Right or wrong: a government has been elected to take control of our laws/our borders/our money and they are just not doing it.

Which is a bit of a problem if they campaigned on that basis (or in 3 words: get Brexit done).

As I said earlier: who is actually running the country? The monarchy has been much in the news recently and I'm quite glad that the person in ultimate power isn't someone lucky enough to be born into a certain family, as it was hundreds of years ago. But the fact is even the government elected into power can't seem to do certain things.

Why is that?

I don't like conspiracy theories much, but when a government can't do what it's been elected to do, one starts to wonder about wider influences.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Well that is a totally other issue. The plane flight to Rwanda was cleared to go by the highest court in the land... it should have gone. Right or wrong: a government has been elected to take control of our laws/our borders/our money and they are just not doing it.

Which is a bit of a problem if they campaigned on that basis (or in 3 words: get Brexit done).

As I said earlier: who is actually running the country? The monarchy has been much in the news recently and I'm quite glad that the person in ultimate power isn't someone lucky enough to be born into a certain family, as it was hundreds of years ago. But the fact is even the government elected into power can't seem to do certain things.

Why is that?

I don't like conspiracy theories much, but when a government can't do what it's been elected to do, one starts to wonder about wider influences.

It wasn’t an issue until 2016.

Now we have elected people who care more for their status and bank balance more than ever before.

Fortunately, we voted to take back control, so these people can now milk the system to the max.

If you are trying to debate the nonsensical plan of sending people floating on the Channel to Rwanda, you’re missing the people in Westminster and their mates getting richer and richer.

 

[El_george]

It wasn’t an issue until 2016.

Now we have elected people who care more for their status and bank balance more than ever before.

Fortunately, we voted to take back control, so these people can now milk the system to the max.

If you are trying to debate the nonsensical plan of sending people floating on the Channel to Rwanda, you’re missing the people in Westminster and their mates getting richer and richer.

It wasn't a nonsensical plan, it was just badly implemented.

As I have said previously, the day after the deal with Rwanda was signed every boat migrant should have been flown there. Not on some chartered flight but by the RAF from a secret base so no protestors. British law had decreed it to be lawful. Upon arrival photographed and the images released to the press. 200, 2000 or whatever number it was that day. I bet the next day no more boats would have risked it.

And then now, in this time now, we could be looking at all the other options.

But the fact is & my concern this week isn't the Rwanda thing - the Patel/Braverman issue (who is more badass) it is just who is actually running the country and are they really in charge, or not?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

It wasn't a nonsensical plan, it was just badly implemented.

As I have said previously, the day after the deal with Rwanda was signed every boat migrant should have been flown there. Not on some chartered flight but by the RAF from a secret base so no protestors. British law had decreed it to be lawful. Upon arrival photographed and the images released to the press. 200, 2000 or whatever number it was that day. I bet the next day no more boats would have risked it.

And then now, in this time now, we could be looking at all the other options.

But the fact is & my concern this week isn't the Rwanda thing - the Patel/Braverman issue (who is more badass) it is just who is actually running the country and are they really in charge, or not?

British law makes not one jot of difference until an application for asylum has been heard (and granted or denied ). Asylum refugees are protected under International laws (to which the UK is a signatory)

 

[west didsblue]

It wasn't a nonsensical plan, it was just badly implemented.

As I have said previously, the day after the deal with Rwanda was signed every boat migrant should have been flown there. Not on some chartered flight but by the RAF from a secret base so no protestors. British law had decreed it to be lawful. Upon arrival photographed and the images released to the press. 200, 2000 or whatever number it was that day. I bet the next day no more boats would have risked it.

And then now, in this time now, we could be looking at all the other options.

But the fact is & my concern this week isn't the Rwanda thing - the Patel/Braverman issue (who is more badass) it is just who is actually running the country and are they really in charge, or not?

Government ministers are only allowed to issue lawful instructions. The current government sees the law as an inconvenience that it tries to get around.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It wasn't a nonsensical plan it was just poorly implemented...

Brexitism

Communism

Nazism

Madagascar Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Poor play from incurious George.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Government ministers are only allowed to issue lawful instructions. The current government sees the law as an inconvenience that it tries to get around.

Trying to get round or abandon, the NI protocol which is written into international law, trying to renege on our commitments to international law under the ECHR, and the simple scrapping of accepted norms governing their behaviour whilst in office.
The only laws they want are the ones that limit freedom of speech, and the right to protest.

 

[mat]

The Dalek and her protest laws giving police Carte Blanche to arrest anyone who dares to comment in a negative way on the royal family.

Teetering on Fascism this country.

 

[Gabriel]

Crossings this year surpass crossings last year. Not sure if the Royal Navy is already no longer involved or if everything has been handed back to Border Force.