Thanks. It's really not helpful/sensible posting a headline with no context. Maybe we need a new thread category " Fuck all to do with Starmer/Labour but blame it on him/them anyway". Some on here would have a field day.Its the Mail Hants, look carefully for those " hidden" Irish references - See above.
One of the biggest shames of the last few decades is how politicised, through ownership in particular, the media has become and it’s been that effective, both sides have managed to convince the other the bbc is somehow the biased one.
It’s the social media world we live in unfortunately though. Most won’t get past 160 characters, some will manage to get to the end of a newspaper article and even less than ever will seemingly read a book.
It’s a big part of why so many are going to extreme views so quickly (not talking about anyone on here specifically).
If the political will existed to do so, there's nothing actually stopping doing what Australia did. Military to patroll coasts and stop arrivals. If necessary put them on safer boats and tell them to sail somewhere else. And if they do land, send them straight to somewhere far away, and deny all asylum applications, blacklisting them from ever seeking asylum ever again through proper channels. That's what Australia did. They did other stuff too like media blackouts.
This was highly controversial, probably illegal and arguably immoral. But it absolutely worked. And where's the sanctions against Australia? Where's the international outcry? Is Australia now viewed as a rogue state? No. No adverse consequences at all, just a problem solved.
Greece have just announced they are not accepting any asylum seekers for the next 3 months. That's illegal too, but they also have had enough.
As I say, this is fixable if anyone in the UK had the will to fix it. There's aspects we'd have to adapt and I am not proposing we do exactly what Australia did in practice. But we seem to think we are hamstring by international law, whereas if we wanted to, we could bend it temporarily.
Of course Starmer as a former human rights lawyer will not contemplate such measures for a nanosecond. Supporters would doubtless say that's a good thing. But it is a political choice.
That's a fair point, and I don't know how it would work in practice. Maybe we wouldn't return them to France, but simply not let them land? If the boat is overloaded, put half of them in another boat and wave them off, "sail where you like but you're not landing here". Sounds incredibly harsh I know. Maybe even unworkable, I don't know. Maybe we just have to let a lot of them land and then send them to Rwanda and refuse all asylum seekers taking that route. As Australia did - i.e. if you attempt to arrive illegally, then we are cancelling your rights to asylum. Illegal yes, but do-able nevertheless. Australia did it. Greece is doing it at the moment.I know there's a lot of discussion about Australia, but one major difference is that they're the big regional power in that area. Most boats will be coming from much poorer countries, who have little power to challenge Australia.
Any similar policy in the UK, would involve sending boats back to France/the EU. France is one of our biggest trading partners, while 40% of our total exports go to the EU. When you consider all the other partnerships we have with France and the EU, it's a huge risk.
As you say, Australia isn't considered a rogue state, but sadly I suspect that self-interest tends to trump morals for many countries. If the UK were to try and start attempting* to return people to France, it wouldn't be just looked down upon morally, or result in a few frowns on the continent. We'd be burning major bridges, and the consequences could very quickly outweigh any savings costs.
*and I say attempt, as I don't see how it works in practice if France refuses.
That's a fair point, and I don't know how it would work in practice. Maybe we wouldn't return them to France, but simply not let them land? If the boat is overloaded, put half of them in another boat and wave them off, "sail where you like but you're not landing here". Sounds incredibly harsh I know. Maybe even unworkable, I don't know. Maybe we just have to let a lot of them land and then send them to Rwanda and refuse all asylum seekers taking that route. As Australia did - i.e. if you attempt to arrive illegally, then we are cancelling your rights to asylum. Illegal yes, but do-able nevertheless. Australia did it. Greece is doing it at the moment.
You raise valid points and I have no issue with calm and sensible debate with anyone who disagrees. In fact I welcome it.What Greece is doing appears a little different. The people arriving are still allowed into Greece, but are being detained. They've paused asylum claims before when they had a big increase, then started accepting them again, and at the moment they're not saying this is permanent. It's not even clear to me what happens to those being detained when the temporary pause is up.
Pretty sure Rwanda said they'd only ever take a few thousand people in total, which would be used up pretty quickly.
I think we'll always disagree on the basics of this - I've worked with asylum seekers, and strongly support the system. But, putting that aside, the practicalities of any of the simple solutions never appear simple to me. I'd be happy for the boats to stop, but mainly because it's hugely dangerous.
Inspiring.
Inspiring.
That taxation affects the retail price.I might well be missing the point here, but is the argument that either
(a) energy companies should keep more of their windfall profits
or (b) that if they weren't taxed at 78% they would reduce prices to the consumer?
But if the wholesale price falls, the windfall tax would end.That taxation affects the retail price.
I am out, think you are missing the pointBut if the wholesale price falls, the windfall tax would end.
I presume everyone knows it was introduced by Sunak.
Hugely. They are very flawed. But everything's relative.
That taxation affects the retail price.
We need a smaller government, costing less and meddlling with people’s lives less. The state needs rolling back. And neither the Tories nor Labour are going to do it.Oh Chippy, I enjoy reading some of your posts and I think you are sometimes harshly dealt with (your OP on the online safety bill being an example) but you've jumped the shark now. Granted we're in a bad way but what policies or capabilities do you think exist therein that would make things anything other than an absolute shit show that sends us down the plug hole completely? I'll happily admit the current government are struggling on multiple fronts but I'm sure sticking our collective tackle into a blender and selecting the high setting is not the answer and that's the best analogy I can think of for what you are suggesting.
Inspiring.