The Labour Government

inbetween said:
That's probably because the electorate doesn't want safe and legal routes and it would destroy them in terms of opening the door to the Tories or Reform. No such safe route exists anywhere in the world. How many safe routes has Europe implemented to stop further people drowning in the Med? None.

Nobody has done this because asylum cannot be claimed from a foreign country and so countries have no obligation to facilitate that migration. Our position is that those migrants do not exist until they exist once they arrive and I don't see why we should change that. I'd understand if somebody was fleeing war but they're not, they're in France.

146,000 people have made the crossing so far since 2018 and that's 146,000 who decided an extremely dangerous journey was a risk worth taking. So how many will come once there is a 'legal' route?

We spend billions per year feeding and housing those that come now so how could we possibly resource for an additional X number of people? And for what reason, because migrants fancy the UK and not France or Europe?
Click to expand...
For what reason? Because they're refugees entitled to apply for asylum.

The UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.

I know what you think - that they should apply for asylum in a safe country before they get to the Channel. And you'd think differently if Britain had a border with a war-torn country from which people have fled.
 
Skr1975 said:
Click to expand...


barely works but then it goes to the "House of Cunts" which is hope to MP's of every flavour ( Sinn Fein excepting as they do not take their seats ) which therefore means when subject to analysis all the MP's are cunts. Now I understand that some share that view and there will be some who alternatively would like to exempt their favourites from the context of the song but sadly for them its calling them ALL cunts
 
Vic said:
For what reason? Because they're refugees entitled to apply for asylum.

The UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.

I know what you think - that they should apply for asylum in a safe country before they get to the Channel. And you'd think differently if Britain had a border with a war-torn country from which people have fled.
Click to expand...
Technically that's wrong, a refugee can only apply for asylum in the country that they're stood in as that's how every country applies the rules. So no refugee can claim asylum in the UK until they're physically stood in the UK, our rules aren't any different to the rest of Europe.

That rule applies everywhere and refugees pass though many safe countries where they could claim asylum so the whole war-torn country thing isn't relevant if safety is all that matters. Of course refugees are entitled to claim asylum anywhere but that doesn't mean there is some given right to pick and choose and each country must facilitate that choice.

On asylum policy, the only difference between us and Europe is there is water between us however there is also water between Europe and Africa. How many border posts are there on the African continent? None. So what reason is there for the UK specifically to put one in Europe given nobody else has done it elsewhere?

What also stops people risking drowning to cross the Mediterranean to get to Calais to claim asylum? Should we put border posts along the entirety of Northern Africa to stop that too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
inbetween said:
Technically that's wrong, a refugee can only apply for asylum in the country that they're stood in as that's how every country applies the rules. So no refugee can claim asylum in the UK until they're physically stood in the UK, our rules aren't any different to the rest of Europe.

That rule applies everywhere and refugees pass though many safe countries where they could claim asylum so the whole war-torn country thing isn't relevant if safety is all that matters. Of course refugees are entitled to claim asylum anywhere but that doesn't mean there is some given right to pick and choose and each country must facilitate that choice.

On asylum policy, the only difference between us and Europe is there is water between us however there is also water between Europe and Africa. How many border posts are there on the African continent? None. So what reason is there for the UK specifically to put one in Europe given nobody else has done it elsewhere?

What also stops people risking drowning to cross the Mediterranean to get to Calais to claim asylum? Should we put border posts along the entirety of Northern Africa to stop that too?
Click to expand...


Totally incorrect ....a refugee has the right to choose the country in which they want to apply for asylum...


They should be allowed to apply for asylum at our consulates and embassies overseas ...that would stop the small boat crossings .
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Totally incorrect ....a refugee has the right to choose the country in which they want to apply for asylum...


They should be allowed to apply for asylum at our consulates and embassies overseas ...that would stop the small boat crossings .
Click to expand...
You can claim that it would lessen them but stop them? That's just made up.
 
hilts said:
You can claim that it would lessen them but stop them? That's just made up.
Click to expand...


Give them the right to apply for asylum whilst overseas but at our embassies and consulates would give the government the right to ''assume'' anyone crossing on a boat would have known that they would fail an application ... and thus could be turned back .
 
bluenova said:
I agree with the drop in new builds, and in particular the right kind of new builds. There are other supply side issues that I mentioned, like second homes, airbnbs, investment properties etc. to add to that.

I also agree that population increase is one of the main issues - although as I've pointed out many times now, population increases over the last 40 years have been as much about demographic changes as net migration.

And if household sizes are coming down, then that's a huge factor too. If the population had stayed the same size since 1970, we'd still have needed around 25% more houses, just to meet that change in how people want to live.
Click to expand...
What do you think the net UK migration population increase has been over the past 30 years?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
What do you think the net UK migration population increase has been over the past 30 years?
Click to expand...

Why the obsession to make it just about one issue?

You're replying to a post that talks about a variety of supply side issues, explains that demographic demand has been about ageing/births as much as migration, and about how smaller household sizes have had a huge impact.

As I've said multiple times, reducing net migration doesn't solve the housing issues, and with an ageing population it creates other problems in the economy.
 
bluenova said:
Why the obsession to make it just about one issue?

You're replying to a post that talks about a variety of supply side issues, explains that demographic demand has been about ageing/births as much as migration, and about how smaller household sizes have had a huge impact.

As I've said multiple times, reducing net migration doesn't solve the housing issues, and with an ageing population it creates other problems in the economy.
Click to expand...

I am afraid for some the issue has been weaponised and made into a binary issue - stop immigration = all issues in the UK ( though most would just say England for ..... reasons ...) and they refuse to listen to any explanation of the consequences that would result from it.

Its the same in the States - Trump has said up to 30m mass deportations of undocumented migrants - there aren't 30m so clearly others are in the firing line. He says the Army will be involved which is against the constitution I understand but people believe him.

Both countries in every way imaginable would be devastated by such a move but simple people buy simple 3 word slogans and don't want to check before endorsing it
 
bluenova said:
Why the obsession to make it just about one issue?

You're replying to a post that talks about a variety of supply side issues, explains that demographic demand has been about ageing/births as much as migration, and about how smaller household sizes have had a huge impact.

As I've said multiple times, reducing net migration doesn't solve the housing issues, and with an ageing population it creates other problems in the economy.
Click to expand...
No obsession, my position all the way through this discussion is that immigration combined with a reduction of new build housing completions are the main reasons for the exhorbitant increases in both house sale and rental costs.

You have thrown every other possible reason you can think of to try and dispel that fact, I fully accept that there are other factors , but they are not the main drivers.

I am guessing you may have this stance because you, along with several others on this forum, don't want to accept that there could be downside as well as upsides to mass immigration?

Anyway I asked you a simple question and you have have decided to not answer it. I suspect you don't want actually want to know the answer ?
 
bluethrunthru said:
I am afraid for some the issue has been weaponised and made into a binary issue - stop immigration = all issues in the UK ( though most would just say England for ..... reasons ...) and they refuse to listen to any explanation of the consequences that would result from it.

Its the same in the States - Trump has said up to 30m mass deportations of undocumented migrants - there aren't 30m so clearly others are in the firing line. He says the Army will be involved which is against the constitution I understand but people believe him.

Both countries in every way imaginable would be devastated by such a move but simple people buy simple 3 word slogans and don't want to check before endorsing it
Click to expand...
I think its best you stick to defending people who violently attack people because they support the same political party as you, as that would appear to be your level of intellect.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
No obsession, my position all the way through this discussion is that immigration combined with a reduction of new build housing completions are the main reasons for the exhorbitant increases in both house sale and rental costs.

You have thrown every other possible reason you can think of to try and dispel that fact, I fully accept that there are other factors , but they are not the main drivers.

I am guessing you may have this stance because you, along with several others on this forum, don't want to accept that there could be downside as well as upsides to mass immigration?

Anyway I asked you a simple question and you have have decided to not answer it. I suspect you don't want actually want to know the answer ?
Click to expand...

Then you're wrong.

Net migration is significant, but it doesn't add up to deomgraphic changes, plus societal changes, plus the reduction in building the right kind of properties and making sure those properties become homes.

I've never said migration doesn't have downsides, and I've never suggested it isn't a large part of the reason for housing issues. Every answer I've given acknowledges net migration as a driver, but just not the "main driver", because there are so many issues that add up to something much bigger.

Why not look up the following and tell me...

How many more houses do we have now compared with 1980?

What's net migration since 1980?

How much has the population increased since 1980?

How much smaller has the average household got since 1980?

You apparently know the answer to one of those questions, but don't seem bothered about the others. Now when you've looked those up, why not tell me if net migration is more of an issue than the rest?
 
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