The Labour Government

inbetween said:
I don't see how this is complicated. 1.2m people arrived last year, we don't know where they chose to live but they don't replace emigrated or people who have died like-for-like. It's likely that they choose to live near a city and quite naturally that's where the most pressures are being felt on schools, the NHS etc.

So in terms of houses where will you instruct Barratt to build the next 1.2m people worth of houses? Oh and by the way we need another 1.2m for next year if that's okay? It's a physical problem that creates immediate pressures every single year.

I don't really understand what else your argument proves because if people are ageing or living alone then so what? Should we shoot them instead to free up houses for immigrants?
Click to expand...

You're taking the highest, and most unusual post-Covid couple of years on record for immigration (this year is already predicted to be back to nearer 300k net). You're making the assumption that they need a house each, but none of the hundreds of thousands that left had one?

I'm, unsurprisingly, not suggesting that we shoot old people and give their houses to immigrants. What you're doing is looking at a large problem, with many causes on both the supply and demand side, and then picking out one demand side issue, and saying that's the problem.
 
bluenova said:
You're taking the highest, and most unusual post-Covid couple of years on record for immigration (this year is already predicted to be back to nearer 300k net). You're making the assumption that they need a house each, but none of the hundreds of thousands that left had one?

I'm, unsurprisingly, not suggesting that we shoot old people and give their houses to immigrants. What you're doing is looking at a large problem, with many causes on both the supply and demand side, and then picking out one demand side issue, and saying that's the problem.
Click to expand...
It's the main/biggest driver, whether you like it or not, we all agree with that including you I think. You are just very reluctant to admit it publicly.
 
NPBlue said:
The rights of asylum seekers to choose the country to which they want to travel to are defined in the United Nations treaty, which the UK is a signitory of. We, or rather Winston Churchill, wrote it.

Your understanding of that piece of international law we have agreed to abide by is flawed. Asylum seekers can travel through safe countries to reach their desired destination. They must not be treated as criminals when they arrive, they are not illegal, and they must be afforded reasonable treatment, even if arriving without passports or other means of identification.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

We could, and did, send them back to France when we were members of the EU, under the terms of the Dublin Accord, but now we have left the EU, that option is no longer available.
Click to expand...

You know I have grown tired of explaining this to those who don't want to know it over the years. The idea that if they travel through "safe" countries like France so should stay there was a fiction developed by the likes of Farage and taken up with relish by people like Jenrick and Badenoch who as trained lawyers MUST know the law or they are borderline unfit to practise law.

As for "illegals" you are also correct - that was another fantasy actually put into law by the last lot - interestingly thats never been properly tested in law and whilst Labour is (rightfully) happy to post figures of how many people are being deported they also make it plain they are dealing with a backlog years old - they don't want to jump straight in on yesterdays arrivals because they will end up in the Courts. And that is also why Jenrick bangs on about leaving the ECHR - he knows laws he helped pass will not be upheld in any court
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
It's the main/biggest driver, whether you like it or not, we all agree with that including you I think. You are just very reluctant to admit it publicly.
Click to expand...

I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.
 
bluenova said:
I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.
Click to expand...
I only wish to debate facts. If 7million more people added to the population via immigration isn't the main driver for the housing shortage and increase in prices and rents what do you think is ?
 
bluenova said:
I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.
Click to expand...
How have you arrived at 10 to 20% of the issue please?
 
NPBlue said:
The rights of asylum seekers to choose the country to which they want to travel to are defined in the United Nations treaty, which the UK is a signitory of. We, or rather Winston Churchill, wrote it.

Your understanding of that piece of international law we have agreed to abide by is flawed. Asylum seekers can travel through safe countries to reach their desired destination. They must not be treated as criminals when they arrive, they are not illegal, and they must be afforded reasonable treatment, even if arriving without passports or other means of identification.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

We could, and did, send them back to France when we were members of the EU, under the terms of the Dublin Accord, but now we have left the EU, that option is no longer available.
Click to expand...
My understanding of international law is not flawed and that's not my point. People can already claim asylum in the UK once they arrive in the UK as is their right so we already meet those obligations. Our policy is no different to Europe where every single refugee who claims asylum is physically in the country where they're claiming asylum.

You could argue well Europe is landlocked and that claim is naturally easier because refugees can walk between countries but that's not strictly true because how did those people get into Europe in the first place? How many cross the Mediterranean for example? It's actually over 100,000 per year and what is Europe doing to stop this? Nothing.

I don't see why we should go above and beyond. If me and many others decided to row to Iceland to claim asylum then does that mean that Iceland should put a border post in the UK to save us the journey? Absolutely not, there is no international obligation that mandates a country to extend its obligations beyond its borders.

You're talking about the treatment of refugees which is fine, I don't have a problem with that and we rightly should fulfil our obligations. I'm talking of where the laws on dealing with refugees applies and those laws do not apply and so are never applied until a refugee arrives here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.