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

[Fred_Quimby]

Yes, it does, but I say again we signed up to the Northern Ireland agreement, but now we are going back on it, because someone has decided that is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time we had a re-think on our signature on something from 70 years ago, because circumstances have changed. A bit like how the European human rights conventions are being re-thought to be replaced with a UK bill of rights, because some of us are getting fed up of people - criminals - being allowed to stay here because they have a cat or something.

I think you have been reading to many Daily Fail/Express articles; nobody is allowed to stay because ’they have a cat or something’. People are allowed to stay because the laws allow them to stay or they are allowed to appeal against certain decisions in exactly the same way as you or I would be able to appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I think you have been reading to many Daily Fail/Express articles; nobody is allowed to stay because ’they have a cat or something’. People are allowed to stay because the laws allow them to stay or they are allowed to appeal against certain decisions in exactly the same way as you or I would be able to appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

He’s just a ****.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Yes, it does, but I say again we signed up to the Northern Ireland agreement, but now we are going back on it, because someone has decided that is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time we had a re-think on our signature on something from 70 years ago, because circumstances have changed. A bit like how the European human rights conventions are being re-thought to be replaced with a UK bill of rights, because some of us are getting fed up of people - criminals - being allowed to stay here because they have a cat or something.

Correct ....but the Government should be lobbying the United Nations for change ..... but they're not are they? Instead they are winding up their base with crackpot ideas like wave machines and deportation to Rwanda.

You're being played ..... but you don't see it.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Furthermore, did Australia not break international law when they implemented off-shoring and pushback methods some years ago? I don't see that Australia has been cast out into the wilderness internationally because of that, or have they and I just don't know about it?

No they didnt. Australia has legal and safe routes for asylum application and immigration. They assume that anyone trying to enter the country by other means are economic migrants and are doing so illegally.

The same approach could be adopted by the UK Government .....

 

[oldius]

Just looking back through some of the posts here and feeling great sadness. We are very lucky if we are born into a country that is not torn apart by war, poverty or corruption: it is not our choice, it is purely through chance. International laws are there to protect human rights, and any of us may need to call upon those at any time. That some are in favour of breaking international law because of a perceived immigration problem is, in my view, despicable. I also imagine that should our actions in support of Ukraine lead to this country being placed in imminent danger of attack, that many who now advocate that we should break international law to deprive people safe passage, would be the very ones who then call upon international law to ensure their own passage to safety.

Please remind yourself that our newspapers are only interested in profits, often generated by clicks on inflammatory articles. They base themselves in tax havens, failing to make the contributions necessary to help deliver the services that an expanding population may need. Meanwhile, our government supplies more arms to the Middle East than any other region of the world, despite it being a tinderbox, and their supporters are the ones who complain that people from that region wish to seek a better life elsewhere.

The only reason this government is refusing to grant safe and legal passage to those who may wish to seek asylum is because it is an unpopular move among their core support. There is no moral objection to immigration among those benches: they know that announcing they are taking firm action to stop it is a vote winner, and that is the greatest sadness of all. This is also why our efforts in granting asylum to Ukrainian refugees are so feeble - we have closed the safe and legal routes of application and now swathes of applicants are giving up on us and going elsewhere.

I thank god that young people are beginning to see through all of this nonsense - no wonder the government is so very keen on curtailing the power of social media, enforcing it to pay the mainstream for news articles, and attempting to ban peaceful protest.

 

[hcblue95]

Well I have said this before, but I will say it again: we should break international laws if we feel they are outdated or that current circumstances mean we should. For example, I would much rather we didn't have 500 possibly economic migrants - possibly asylum seekers come last weekend across the channel and instead we'd have 5000 people in obvious need of a safe haven, from Ukraine instead.

Furthermore, did Australia not break international law when they implemented off-shoring and pushback methods some years ago? I don't see that Australia has been cast out into the wilderness internationally because of that, or have they and I just don't know about it?

Don't get many tories from Liverpool. You're not from Liverpool are you?

 

[redpedred]

Correct ....but the Government should be lobbying the United Nations for change ..... but they're not are they? Instead they are winding up their base with crackpot ideas like wave machines and deportation to Rwanda.

You're being played ..... but you don't see it.

Oh perleasse... the UN!! what a joke of an organisation that is (I refer of course to the current Ukraine/Russia situation) where they have shown themselves to be totally hopeless - another League of Nations if I may say. Of course, as a founding member Russia can't be ejected from the UN, but what is to stop all other countries just disbanding the whole thing and starting a new organisation sans Russia, that's what I'd do. Russia don't deserve to be in the UN after what they have done since Feb 24.

Ditto NATO: so Turkey is being difficult about Scandi countries joining and threatening to veto that idea - who are they to be the big I AM? Kick Turkey out of NATO and welcome in Finland and Sweden instead and if Turkey wants to get into bed with Russia, then good luck to them.

Don't get many tories from Liverpool. You're not from Liverpool are you?

No, I am not!

 

[bluethrunthru]

Oh perleasse... the UN!! what a joke of an organisation that is (I refer of course to the current Ukraine/Russia situation) where they have shown themselves to be totally hopeless - another League of Nations if I may say. Of course, as a founding member Russia can't be ejected from the UN, but what is to stop all other countries just disbanding the whole thing and starting a new organisation sans Russia, that's what I'd do. Russia don't deserve to be in the UN after what they have done since Feb 24.

What do you think the UN should do? Put Peacekeepers into a war zone? Do you really think that China and a few others would disband and join a new organisation or go off and form their own and become even more dangerous as a rogue bloc?

 

[redpedred]

What do you think the UN should do? Put Peacekeepers into a war zone? Do you really think that China and a few others would disband and join a new organisation or go off and form their own and become even more dangerous as a rogue bloc?

All I'm saying is that on 25th Feb Russia should have been kicked out of the UN.

People say, oh you can't do that - they would veto it! So I'm saying close the whole thing down then.

This goes back to the argument that Britain can't suddenly decide to retract from the N.I. agreement or withdraw from maritime laws that are hampering any attempt to really deal with the small boats issue (see also human rights laws) but I'm saying that they can and they should if it is the right thing to do now because now is now and things change.

 

[bluethrunthru]

All I'm saying is that on 25th Feb Russia should have been kicked out of the UN.

People say, oh you can't do that - they would veto it! So I'm saying close the whole thing down then.

This goes back to the argument that Britain can't suddenly decide to retract from the N.I. agreement or withdraw from maritime laws that are hampering any attempt to really deal with the small boats issue (see also human rights laws) but I'm saying that they can and they should if it is the right thing to do now because now is now and things change.

So you want things done that you previously said couldn't be done? Breaking International laws left right and centre will reduce us to the world standing of a tiny atoll in the Pacific - nobody will want to talk deal or trade with us.