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

[BobKowalski]

"This, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

which is from this comment piece:

The French want us to pay for Europe's disastrous immigration policies. It's time to take control

Let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing

www.telegraph.co.uk

I post the full txt as it is behind a paywall but still worth a read, it is a good summary of where things are at (I know some people here will see the source and dismiss it out-of-hand, just like those refusing to watch GB News cos its GB News, but sometimes it is good to see all sides of an argument).

"Finally, the government is taking action. Finally, after months, years even, of hand-wringing, Priti Patel has told the Border Force to intercept boats and send them back to France – a country to which we’re giving £54m to stop all this happening in the first place. But what do we get from the French? Intransigence. Belligerence. A refusal to cooperate. It breaks international law, they say. It’s dangerous, they tell us. It’s blackmail. Well, merci beaucoup.

This French position makes no sense. There’s precedent for turning boats back – it’s been carried out by Greek, Australian and other jurisdictions – and the action will only be considered when it’s safe.

As for blackmail. Well, British taxpayers, just a couple of days after a massive national insurance hike, have a right to ask where our investment in the French authorities is going. We’re handing that cash to the French so that they can put more manpower into preventing illegal crossings, yet crossings are at a record high. So what’s going on?

In any case, what matters is not the raw number of boats pointed back towards Calais. It’s the message it sends: if you try to cross the channel illegally, treacherously, you’ll be wasting your money, and back where you started.

Do the French suggest we just carry on as we are? Perhaps that would suit them, shifting a problem to those bothersome Brexit Brits. Michel Barnier’s populist and hypocritical anti-immigrant pitch to be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate shows that immigration is a huge electoral issue in France. It suits them to keep the flow of channel migrants motoring north.

And it’s working. Just this week, 1,500 people have made illegal crossings and been welcomed into Britain. So far this year, more than 14,000 have made it to our shores – far more than the last two years put together. No wonder Kent’s system for dealing with it all is at breaking point. No wonder estimates show there are a million illegal immigrants already living in the UK. And let’s just remind ourselves that channel migrants are coming here from France, a perfectly safe country.

Meanwhile, the human cost of these journeys is appalling. Several hundred migrants, including children, have drowned over the last two decades. Yet, so long as they think there’s a good chance they’ll get to Britain, and be allowed to stay, they’ll keep on coming. And, tragically, dying. Sending migrants in dinghies across the channel is like sending children to run across a motorway – a deadly, watery version of Russian roulette within easy viewing of the White Cliffs.

So let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing. In principle, it will make it easier to remove people with no right to be here, with tougher penalties for illegal entry. It will allow for asylum claims to be processed outside the UK, leading eventually to all applications being processed offshore. Such a process must be firm, speedy and just. That, more than anything, will crush the smugglers.

Critics, of course, say the Bill is heartless. I’d ask them how heartless it is to continue with a system that’s killed hundreds of people while thumbing its nose at other asylum seekers who patiently play by the rules and pursue the legal route. Every drowned migrant is blood on the hands of the British and French authorities and of anyone else who tacitly encourages illegal entry.

This, then, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

UK official vessels entering sovereign French waters to commit an illegal act will be viewed as hostile, so UK official vessels will not enter French territorial waters in any pushback attempt. The best they could do is pushback a dinghie/boat/whatever to the midpoint and then what? Wait them out? Watch them freeze overnight?

The only option open to the UK Govt, given we shot ourselves in both feet with Brexit, is to pay the French. Which is what we do.

This isn’t just about refugees or migrants, it’s about frustration and impotence. We can’t return those who land here, we can’t tow them back to France so we are stuck with a problem entirely of our own making and we can’t admit it, hence you get all the crazy talk.

We fucked it. We can’t admit we fucked it, so, we blame the French.

 

[NPBlue]

Its funny how people pick and choose what is illegal, or not, depending on their point of view.... is not the intention to sneak into Britain itself illegal? Could doing so during a massive global pandemic not also be viewed as an 'aggressive act'?



As I have said, during unprecedented times 'emergency powers' can be invoked to override existing laws - I consider the pandemic to be that and if the government had had any backbone, so would they.

We are bound by the treaties we have signed, There are clear and unambiguous paragraphs setting out how we treat human beings arriving on our shores without correct or proper documentation.

We can't just ignore our humanitarian obligations we agreed to abide by decades ago because there is a pandemic.

Within the treaty we signed, they are not criminals. We can't send them back from where they came, and we have to treat them with dignity.

You may not like it, but read the appropriate paragraphs in our legally binding treaty we have with the United Nations.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

We are bound by the treaties we have signed, There are clear and unambiguous paragraphs setting out how we treat human beings arriving on our shores without correct or proper documentation.

We can't just ignore our humanitarian obligations we agreed to abide by decades ago because there is a pandemic.

Within the treaty we signed, they are not criminals. We can't send them back from where they came, and we have to treat them with dignity.

You may not like it, but read the appropriate paragraphs in our legally binding treaty we have with the United Nations.

Its a strange time we live in where ''Treating people like shit'' is an acceptable political ideology to tens of millions of UK voters.

 

[Vic]

"This, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

which is from this comment piece:

The French want us to pay for Europe's disastrous immigration policies. It's time to take control

Let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing

www.telegraph.co.uk

I post the full txt as it is behind a paywall but still worth a read, it is a good summary of where things are at (I know some people here will see the source and dismiss it out-of-hand, just like those refusing to watch GB News cos its GB News, but sometimes it is good to see all sides of an argument).

"Finally, the government is taking action. Finally, after months, years even, of hand-wringing, Priti Patel has told the Border Force to intercept boats and send them back to France – a country to which we’re giving £54m to stop all this happening in the first place. But what do we get from the French? Intransigence. Belligerence. A refusal to cooperate. It breaks international law, they say. It’s dangerous, they tell us. It’s blackmail. Well, merci beaucoup.

This French position makes no sense. There’s precedent for turning boats back – it’s been carried out by Greek, Australian and other jurisdictions – and the action will only be considered when it’s safe.

As for blackmail. Well, British taxpayers, just a couple of days after a massive national insurance hike, have a right to ask where our investment in the French authorities is going. We’re handing that cash to the French so that they can put more manpower into preventing illegal crossings, yet crossings are at a record high. So what’s going on?

In any case, what matters is not the raw number of boats pointed back towards Calais. It’s the message it sends: if you try to cross the channel illegally, treacherously, you’ll be wasting your money, and back where you started.

Do the French suggest we just carry on as we are? Perhaps that would suit them, shifting a problem to those bothersome Brexit Brits. Michel Barnier’s populist and hypocritical anti-immigrant pitch to be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate shows that immigration is a huge electoral issue in France. It suits them to keep the flow of channel migrants motoring north.

And it’s working. Just this week, 1,500 people have made illegal crossings and been welcomed into Britain. So far this year, more than 14,000 have made it to our shores – far more than the last two years put together. No wonder Kent’s system for dealing with it all is at breaking point. No wonder estimates show there are a million illegal immigrants already living in the UK. And let’s just remind ourselves that channel migrants are coming here from France, a perfectly safe country.

Meanwhile, the human cost of these journeys is appalling. Several hundred migrants, including children, have drowned over the last two decades. Yet, so long as they think there’s a good chance they’ll get to Britain, and be allowed to stay, they’ll keep on coming. And, tragically, dying. Sending migrants in dinghies across the channel is like sending children to run across a motorway – a deadly, watery version of Russian roulette within easy viewing of the White Cliffs.

So let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing. In principle, it will make it easier to remove people with no right to be here, with tougher penalties for illegal entry. It will allow for asylum claims to be processed outside the UK, leading eventually to all applications being processed offshore. Such a process must be firm, speedy and just. That, more than anything, will crush the smugglers.

Critics, of course, say the Bill is heartless. I’d ask them how heartless it is to continue with a system that’s killed hundreds of people while thumbing its nose at other asylum seekers who patiently play by the rules and pursue the legal route. Every drowned migrant is blood on the hands of the British and French authorities and of anyone else who tacitly encourages illegal entry.

This, then, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

I'll just pick on:

British taxpayers, just a couple of days after a massive national insurance hike, have a right to ask where our investment in the French authorities is going.


Where's the £350m a week Brexit bonus going? Who's going to work in care homes except immigrants?

 

[Rascal]

"This, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

which is from this comment piece:

The French want us to pay for Europe's disastrous immigration policies. It's time to take control

Let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing

www.telegraph.co.uk

I post the full txt as it is behind a paywall but still worth a read, it is a good summary of where things are at (I know some people here will see the source and dismiss it out-of-hand, just like those refusing to watch GB News cos its GB News, but sometimes it is good to see all sides of an argument).

I was a Telegraph reader for years, it had good sport coverage, I loved the cryptic crossword and the Opinion pieces although not my political leanings were always a good read. Sadly nowadays the paper is just another Daily Mail, specialising in outrage journalism and political division.

"Finally, the government is taking action. Finally, after months, years even, of hand-wringing, Priti Patel has told the Border Force to intercept boats and send them back to France – a country to which we’re giving £54m to stop all this happening in the first place. But what do we get from the French? Intransigence. Belligerence. A refusal to cooperate. It breaks international law, they say. It’s dangerous, they tell us. It’s blackmail. Well, merci beaucoup.

It is always good for the further right to have a bogey man, France has played that role on many occasions throughout history. Quelle surprise!

This French position makes no sense

Zut Alors!

. There’s precedent for turning boats back – it’s been carried out by Greek, Australian and other jurisdictions – and the action will only be considered when it’s safe.

There was precedent for sending children up chimneys, so will that be considered perfectly acceptable.

As for blackmail

That is a loaded statement, pesky French blackmailers.

. Well, British taxpayers,

Tories, not normal people, as the RW nutjobs do not realise everyone pays tax.

just a couple of days after a massive national insurance hike,

So the Telegraph opposes social care for its readers. Vraiment!

have a right to ask where our investment in the French authorities is going. We’re handing that cash to the French so that they can put more manpower into preventing illegal crossings, yet crossings are at a record high. So what’s going on?

Thats it raise the tensions, exaggerate, that gets the blood boiling. Mr Angry of Purfleet will be seething now.

In any case, what matters is not the raw number of boats pointed back towards Calais. It’s the message it sends: if you try to cross the channel illegally, treacherously, you’ll be wasting your money, and back where you started.

Treacherously, who are they being treasonous towards.

Do the French suggest we just carry on as we are? Perhaps that would suit them, shifting a problem to those bothersome Brexit Brits. Michel Barnier’s populist and hypocritical anti-immigrant pitch to be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate shows that immigration is a huge electoral issue in France. It suits them to keep the flow of channel migrants motoring north.

Hopefully our readers know nothing about French politics, so we can tell some fibs and introduce Barnier's name as another bogeyman. The share of foreign-born population in the EU is lower than in most high-income countries and only 9% of immigrants into the EU are asylum seekers. Facts hey!

13.4% of Lebanon's population is made up of refugees, Germany is the largest in Europe where it is 1.4% and that is because of an historic pledge made after WW2. The EU figure overall is 0.6%

The Asylum seeking numbers from 2019 show France accepted 87.100, the UK 32,000. So suiting them going North is a lie.

And it’s working. Just this week, 1,500 people have made illegal crossings and been welcomed into Britain. So far this year, more than 14,000 have made it to our shores – far more than the last two years put together. No wonder Kent’s system for dealing with it all is at breaking point.

All that shows is our immigration services are broken, years of austerity, cuts to manpower.

No wonder estimates show there are a million illegal immigrants already living in the UK.

Estimated by who? Farage?

And let’s just remind ourselves that channel migrants are coming here from France, a perfectly safe country.

Lets remind ourselves that the Channel migrants are coming from countries that are war torn and/or suffering the effects of climate change. France may be perfectly safe if you are from the Sahel and speak French, but if you are from a country that has a British colonial history chances are your French is on a par with mine.

Meanwhile, the human cost of these journeys is appalling.

Desperate people do desperate things. They aren't coming here for welfare, nobody is that daft, they are coming here because we as a country have a long and proud history of being a fair and judicious nation that is safe and the rule of law is sacrosanct,

Several hundred migrants, including children, have drowned over the last two decades. Yet, so long as they think there’s a good chance they’ll get to Britain, and be allowed to stay, they’ll keep on coming. And, tragically, dying. Sending migrants in dinghies across the channel is like sending children to run across a motorway – a deadly, watery version of Russian roulette within easy viewing of the White Cliffs.

Just a thought here, but allow them to apply for asylum and they wouldnt need to get into dinghies.

So let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing

Trust this government, the writer is on crack

. In principle, it will make it easier to remove people with no right to be here, with tougher penalties for illegal entry.

Thats what they really want, the right to remove people, hopefully they will start with the PM, he was born abroad.

It will allow for asylum claims to be processed outside the UK,

A good thing

leading eventually to all applications being processed offshore. Such a process must be firm, speedy and just.

Correct

That, more than anything, will crush the smugglers.

Get more bogeymen in the piece.

Critics, of course, say the Bill is heartless. I’d ask them how heartless it is to continue with a system that’s killed hundreds of people while thumbing its nose at other asylum seekers who patiently play by the rules and pursue the legal route.

Get some division in the article , good and bad asylum seekers.

Every drowned migrant is blood on the hands of the British and French authorities and of anyone else who tacitly encourages illegal entry.

No, its on the hands of the British Government and the Prime Minister. Nobody needed to drown to sate the bloodlust of the nutjob right.

This, then, is a huge test for Priti Patel.

Don't mention the Prime Minister, make it about one of his idiotic cabinet members.

And there’s no hiding place.

Johnson his in a fridge.

With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings.

Will you tell us why?

If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

Argy-bargy FFS, its not the Five Nations at Twickers, The French are our allies, jingoistic bollox like that is dangerous.

Thankfully I no longer buy a paper that comes out with unmitigated shit. The only newspaper now that is worth paying for is the venerable Socialist daily, the Morning Star.

 

[patrickkinney]

Will you tell us why?

Well thank you for such a detailed breakdown of the thing I posted, as regards the question you posed all I can answer is with this:

Have you ever been to Alton Towers? There are some good rides and some rubbish ones.

On planet earth, Britain is one of the 'good rides' and there are massive queues to get on it/in it & this will only get worse as climate change takes effect.

If I'm at Alton Towers and I see people jumping the queue, it vexxes me. When I see people crossing the channel that is just jumping the queue too.... it is just not right. Furthermore, despite what people may say, most are economic migrants and not asylum seekers - why not stay in your home country and improve it from within? Just running away to somewhere better (leaving the women and children behind) won't work forever.

P.S. As regards: "The only newspaper now that is worth paying for is the venerable Socialist daily, the Morning Star." Name a country where communism has actually worked and don't say Cuba:

The myth of Cuban healthcare — Adam Smith Institute

On the 9th September, the ASI welcomed Cuban journalist and academic, Boris Gonzalez Arenas, speaking to us over Skype about his homeland - so often portrayed as content by socialists - where the Castro regime has for decades shut down dissent and held back development. Boris couldn’t be present in

www.adamsmith.org

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Well thank you for such a detailed breakdown of the thing I posted, as regards the question you posed all I can answer is with this:

Have you ever been to Alton Towers? There are some good rides and some rubbish ones.

On planet earth, Britain is one of the 'good rides' and there are massive queues to get on it/in it & this will only get worse as climate change takes effect.

If I'm at Alton Towers and I see people jumping the queue, it vexxes me. When I see people crossing the channel that is just jumping the queue too.... it is just not right. Furthermore, despite what people may say, most are economic migrants and not asylum seekers - why not stay in your home country and improve it from within? Just running away to somewhere better (leaving the women and children behind) won't work forever.

P.S. As regards: "The only newspaper now that is worth paying for is the venerable Socialist daily, the Morning Star." Name a country where communism has actually worked and don't say Cuba:

The myth of Cuban healthcare — Adam Smith Institute

On the 9th September, the ASI welcomed Cuban journalist and academic, Boris Gonzalez Arenas, speaking to us over Skype about his homeland - so often portrayed as content by socialists - where the Castro regime has for decades shut down dissent and held back development. Boris couldn’t be present in

www.adamsmith.org

I'm not sure citing the Adam Smith institute's website is much use.

It’s easy to paint the world in simplistic analogies but doesn't actual reflect the true situation.

Did you know that immigrants fleeing persecution can alternatively get diplomatic protection instead of asylum?

Probably not.

Immigration and asylum in real life is shades of grey not black and white.

I have met people who claimed asylum in Europe. A Turkish trans girl who fled marginalisation and victimisation in her home country to travel to the Netherlands and a Columbian whose claim in Germany was rejected but spoke English in a German accent and was allowed to study nursing but prevented from travelling outside of Germany or the Schengen on the terms of her residency.

Both of these people were obviously desperate to leave with only as much as they could carry and go to a country where they didn't speak the language, but they also have facts about there case where you could point out that they weren't so needy as others, or they also took into account economic prospects. But why would you flee your country for something only marginally better unless you had no other choice (e.g. Rohingyas)?

Your analogy also doesn't make any sense, there are no queue jumpers, because there are no legal routes. To get into the UK via legal methods you need a visa, you need to declare the true purpose of your visit, obtaining a tourist visa with the intention of claiming asylum is an immigration offence.

 

[ROCKET80]

Well thank you for such a detailed breakdown of the thing I posted, as regards the question you posed all I can answer is with this:

Have you ever been to Alton Towers? There are some good rides and some rubbish ones.

On planet earth, Britain is one of the 'good rides' and there are massive queues to get on it/in it & this will only get worse as climate change takes effect.

If I'm at Alton Towers and I see people jumping the queue, it vexxes me. When I see people crossing the channel that is just jumping the queue too.... it is just not right. Furthermore, despite what people may say, most are economic migrants and not asylum seekers - why not stay in your home country and improve it from within? Just running away to somewhere better (leaving the women and children behind) won't work forever.

P.S. As regards: "The only newspaper now that is worth paying for is the venerable Socialist daily, the Morning Star." Name a country where communism has actually worked and don't say Cuba:

The myth of Cuban healthcare — Adam Smith Institute

On the 9th September, the ASI welcomed Cuban journalist and academic, Boris Gonzalez Arenas, speaking to us over Skype about his homeland - so often portrayed as content by socialists - where the Castro regime has for decades shut down dissent and held back development. Boris couldn’t be present in

www.adamsmith.org

The best argument against Democracy are posts like this.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Well thank you for such a detailed breakdown of the thing I posted, as regards the question you posed all I can answer is with this:

Have you ever been to Alton Towers? There are some good rides and some rubbish ones.

On planet earth, Britain is one of the 'good rides' and there are massive queues to get on it/in it & this will only get worse as climate change takes effect.

If I'm at Alton Towers and I see people jumping the queue, it vexxes me. When I see people crossing the channel that is just jumping the queue too.... it is just not right. Furthermore, despite what people may say, most are economic migrants and not asylum seekers - why not stay in your home country and improve it from within? Just running away to somewhere better (leaving the women and children behind) won't work forever.

P.S. As regards: "The only newspaper now that is worth paying for is the venerable Socialist daily, the Morning Star." Name a country where communism has actually worked and don't say Cuba:

The myth of Cuban healthcare — Adam Smith Institute

On the 9th September, the ASI welcomed Cuban journalist and academic, Boris Gonzalez Arenas, speaking to us over Skype about his homeland - so often portrayed as content by socialists - where the Castro regime has for decades shut down dissent and held back development. Boris couldn’t be present in

www.adamsmith.org

Vietnam .

 

[patrickkinney]

Vietnam .

In Vietnam, approximately 43.0 women per 100,000 births die during labor as of 2017. In United Kingdom, 7.0 women do as of 2017.

In Vietnam, approximately 15.7 children die before they reach the age of one as of 2020. In United Kingdom, on the other hand, 4.1 children do as of 2020.

Vietnam has a GDP per capita of $6,900 as of 2017, while in United Kingdom, the GDP per capita is $44,300 as of 2017.

I suppose money isn't everything - although that is a tricky arguement to make on a Manchester City fan's website.