Question Time

[BobKowalski]

You’ve got more faith in Labour than me

It is not a question of faith. The Tories have stopped governing the country. The court and legal system is broken. Prisoners are being released early. Social care which the Tories vowed to fix - remember the 2019 manifesto promise to ‘fix social care?’ What happened? Oh, that’s right they cut NI. Sensible governance abandoned for idealogical nonsense. I could go on, but you get the drift.

Labour will govern the country. This alone will make a difference.

 

[mosssideblue]

I’d agree with that but I’d counter the comment and say that anybody who has total faith in Labour atm is also going to struggle to get into MENSA

Based on what exactly, genuine question

 

[BobKowalski]

Ultimately I believe the UK won’t have to leave the ECHR, because over the next 10-15 years or so they’ll be a dramatic shift in the mainstream political opinion across Europe towards the migration issue, and the sort of schemes which appear controversial now will become the norm. Any legal or constitutional impediments will simply be moved out of the way.

You only have to look at the global population projections and where that growth is concentrated to see the sort of pressure that migration will place on Europe. Expecting all of this to disappear with Rishi Sunak, like most of the people on here expect, simply isn’t rational.

International pressures and world trends/events do not change with a change of Government. What can change is the way we tackle these issues such as asylum. Many European Govts are looking at ways to ease the flows and pressures including overseas processing, but they do so within the framework of international law and the ECHR. The Tories wanted to do it in a way that broke international law.

And that sums up the Tories. Law breaking. Be it partygate, PPE profiteering, illegal prorogation of parliament, Rwanda, betting using insider information - there is a dark rot that sits at the heart of what is now Toryism. The stench of decay is overwhelming and that stench is driving people to punish the Tories.

 

[metalblue]

International pressures and world trends/events do not change with a change of Government. What can change is the way we tackle these issues such as asylum. Many European Govts are looking at ways to ease the flows and pressures including overseas processing, but they do so within the framework of international law and the ECHR. The Tories wanted to do it in a way that broke international law.

And that sums up the Tories. Law breaking. Be it partygate, PPE profiteering, illegal prorogation of parliament, Rwanda, betting using insider information - there is a dark rot that sits at the heart of what is now Toryism. The stench of decay is overwhelming and that stench is driving people to punish the Tories.

A lot of signatories to the ECHR have broken ECHR law on immigration.

I make this point not in support of the UK’s approach but for accuracy.

 

[west didsblue]

I’d agree with that but I’d counter the comment and say that anybody who has total faith in Labour atm is also going to struggle to get into MENSA

Haven’t seen anyone say they have total faith in Labour or any political party. What people rightly have is an expectation that they can’t be as bad as the current lot and a hope that they’ll be significantly better. Not being as bad as the Tories is a pretty low bar.

 

[BrianW]

I am a great believer in the rule of law because once you go outside that (even for the best of reasons) you are on the road to tyranny.

I am certain Labour will rule within those bounds, whereas the Tories have proved that they are not content to do so. That, in fact, they hold the courts in contempt.

So if there was no other reason at all to vote Labour, that would do for me. I do not want to live in a fascist shithole where the law is whatever the government says it is. And while we are not there at the moment, we have taken steps in that direction and the government has encouraged the mob to hate the law and due process. If you can't see how dangerous this is, I can't help you.

 

[Chris in London]

Ultimately I believe the UK won’t have to leave the ECHR, because over the next 10-15 years or so they’ll be a dramatic shift in the mainstream political opinion across Europe towards the migration issue, and the sort of schemes which appear controversial now will become the norm. Any legal or constitutional impediments will simply be moved out of the way.

You only have to look at the global population projections and where that growth is concentrated to see the sort of pressure that migration will place on Europe. Expecting all of this to disappear with Rishi Sunak, like most of the people on here expect, simply isn’t rational.

Another Tory who does not understand the difference between asylum and migration.

Are you actually in the cabinet?

 

[Phil1]

Another Tory who does not understand the difference between asylum and migration.

Are you actually in the cabinet?

It’s been a long held suspicion tbf.

 

[BobKowalski]

A lot of signatories to the ECHR have broken ECHR law on immigration.

I make this point not in support of the UK’s approach but for accuracy.

EU countries are exploring overseas processing of asylum claims within the framework of international law, EU law and ECHR obligations. The UK Rwanda scheme is not about overseas processing, but sending people to Rwanda without the option of having their cases heard. That is why the UK scheme is so egregious.

Greece has been found in breach by the ECHR, although given the reports of deliberate drownings and deaths by Greek authorities, I think we are way beyond breaches of international law.

The Tories post 2016 and, specifically under Johnson, sought to break established norms and codes of practice allowing us to reach a point where we deliberately craft laws with disregard to international law and allow public servants to place bets using insider information - a criminal offence - and no one is remotely surprised.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Another Tory who does not understand the difference between asylum and migration.

Are you actually in the cabinet?

I do understand the difference, which is why I’ve used the term migration.

Migration correctly describes the increased displacement of people expected to develop as a consequence of the population growth projected for the next two decades. All major intergovernmental agencies refer to this as migration; some use the term irregular migration. You should also note that I referred to the challenges presented by migration in a Europe-wide context, rather than any individual country, which further supports to use of migration rather than asylum.

Thanks.