What has the UK become under the far right influence?

blueinsa said:
So are you for or against Irelands forthcoming emergency legislation to return asylum seekers because they don’t want them?
Click to expand...
Of course they're going to support Ireland to enact legislation to rid itself of asylum seekers, because they can't help to point out that this was a benefit of being in the EU. Obviously it's extremely hypocritical given the mantra that we (and everybody else?) should apparently go out of our way to take every single asylum seeker on earth.

I still don't really understand why some seem to hold the EU in such a high regard on this problem. The EU has done nothing about the boat arrivals that continue to come into Greece and Italy. The simple fact is like us the EU, Greece and Italy won't do anything because they want to reduce numbers and not increase them.

Italy for example does not have an asylum processing border post in a 3rd country such as Algeria, Tunisia or Libya so why should we have one in a 3rd country such as France? Like us they're never going to have such a post because they don't want to encourage more migration.

Unfortunately it just isn't possible to stop people from climbing into a boat and travelling here. It isn't even a random choice because they're paying gangs thousands to do it. The only way to stop it is for a deterrent to exist which defeats any reason to consider coming in the first place but that's another argument itself.
 
inbetween said:
Of course they're going to support Ireland to enact legislation to rid itself of asylum seekers, because they can't help to point out that this was a benefit of being in the EU. Obviously it's extremely hypocritical given the mantra that we (and everybody else?) should apparently go out of our way to take every single asylum seeker on earth.

I still don't really understand why some seem to hold the EU in such a high regard on this problem. The EU has done nothing about the boat arrivals that continue to come into Greece and Italy. The simple fact is like us the EU, Greece and Italy won't do anything because they want to reduce numbers and not increase them.

Italy for example does not have an asylum processing border post in a 3rd country such as Algeria, Tunisia or Libya so why should we have one in a 3rd country such as France? Like us they're never going to have such a post because they don't want to encourage more migration.

Unfortunately it just isn't possible to stop people from climbing into a boat and travelling here. It isn't even a random choice because they're paying gangs thousands to do it. The only way to stop it is for a deterrent to exist which defeats any reason to consider coming in the first place but that's another argument itself.
Click to expand...

The people in boats risk death to themselves and their families - what deterrent do you suggest that is greater than the risk of death? Certain death?
 
Brewster's millions said:
A very good argument for arming the police.
Click to expand...

It isn’t. Giving every copper in the UK a gun based on one incident is dumb. Our current policy based on ‘policing by consent’ works perfectly fine. Police can be armed when the situation warrants, which is rare, and fatalities by the police even rarer.
 
BobKowalski said:
The people in boats risk death to themselves and their families - what deterrent do you suggest that is greater than the risk of death? Certain death?
Click to expand...
There is no need to add the emotive aspect to this. That indeed already acts as a deterrent but how many more thousands will come if we remove that deterrent? Either way no other country in Europe has done it so why should we?

If we take what's happened in Europe over the last 10 years as an example then it could mean hundreds of thousands of people coming and we do not have the resources to cope with those numbers.

Legal migration is already adding a city the size of Bristol to our numbers every single year. Is it physically possible to build houses, schools, hospitals and infrastructure equivalent to the size of Bristol in one year? What about the additional hundreds of thousands?

Btw, i'm not advocating for zero migration, I'm advocating for control.
 
BobKowalski said:
The people in boats risk death to themselves and their families - what deterrent do you suggest that is greater than the risk of death? Certain death?
Click to expand...

The ferry crossing can be rough at times from Cairnryan Bob but come on…

Still, worth it when they get to Ireland.

Shame the Irish don’t want them either…
 
inbetween said:
There is no need to add the emotive aspect to this. That indeed already acts as a deterrent but how many more thousands will come if we remove that deterrent? Either way no other country in Europe has done it so why should we?

If we take what's happened in Europe over the last 10 years as an example then it could mean hundreds of thousands of people coming and we do not have the resources to cope with those numbers.

Legal migration is already adding a city the size of Bristol to our numbers every single year. Is it physically possible to build houses, schools, hospitals and infrastructure equivalent to the size of Bristol in one year? What about the additional hundreds of thousands?

Btw, i'm not advocating for zero migration, I'm advocating for control.
Click to expand...

I asked a question. They already risk death. What is your deterrent?

Migration via boat crossing annually is around 300k into the EU - that is 29 countries. Chances of 300k ending up here are remote.

In other news, Italy, in common with other EU countries has steadily been increasing its non-EU immigration quota because, like us, it needs the labour. Kind of feels counter-intuitive.
 
blueinsa said:
The ferry crossing can be rough at times from Cairnryan Bob but come on…

Still, worth it when they get to Ireland.

Shame the Irish don’t want them either…
Click to expand...

Five people died in a recent channel crossing, including a seven year old. That they can use the ferry to get to Ireland most have come as a blessing to those that survived.

So, again. What is the proposed deterrent? It’s a simple enough question.
 
BobKowalski said:
In other news, Italy, in common with other EU countries has steadily been increasing its non-EU immigration quota because, like us, it needs the labour. Kind of feels counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...

So countries outside of the EU are there just to provide the developed EU and us with menial labour? Terrible argument and a never ending solution to a problem we aren't facing up to.

We need less people not more, we need the people that are here now to do jobs not farm them out to someone who comes here on a dinghy, we need to stop stealing the qualified people of under developed countries instead of training our own.

If you want people over here because menial work needs to be done then shame on you, I suspect however a lot of nonsensical opinions like this are more to do with trying to throw a spanner in the works of the west.
 
BobKowalski said:
Five people died in a recent channel crossing, including a seven year old. That they can use the ferry to get to Ireland most have come as a blessing to those that survived.

So, again. What is the proposed deterrent? It’s a simple enough question.
Click to expand...

The blame is on the parent who decided to put the child in the boat, escaping war torn France wasn't/ isn't a good enough reason.
 
LangleyBlue1970 said:
Pretty straightforward really.
Click to expand...

It is that straightforward.

These people are not in fear of their lives in France so any desire to jump into a flimsy boat because they fancy a life in the UK is on them and them alone and the tragic deaths of adults and more so the children, very much lies with the parents who take such a bad decision.

If the boats where leaving a hell hole, my position would be different but they don’t, they are leaving a perfectly safe country in which they face no dangers at all.
 
blueinsa said:
It is that straightforward.

These people are not in fear of their lives in France so any desire to jump into a flimsy boat because they fancy a life in the UK is on them and them alone and the tragic deaths of adults and more so the children, very much lies with the parents who take such a bad decision.

If the boats where leaving a hell hole, my position would be different but they don’t, they are leaving a perfectly safe country in which they face no dangers at all.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. Whenever I put this to people (about France) they rarely have an answer.
 
Still see no one actually wanting to resolve the issue, just tell them not to get in boats. That doesn’t seem to be working.

The Ireland issue is going to cause tensions with the Good Friday border agreement. It’s hardly the celebratory told you so moment for you guys.

Still, another county is suffering with immigration. Rejoice!

The other option seems to be bigger deterrents. That’ll work until other countries create even worse deterrents and it’ll be a race to the bottom to see how poorly countries can get away with treating asylum seekers.
 
inbetween said:
There is no need to add the emotive aspect to this. That indeed already acts as a deterrent but how many more thousands will come if we remove that deterrent? Either way no other country in Europe has done it so why should we?

If we take what's happened in Europe over the last 10 years as an example then it could mean hundreds of thousands of people coming and we do not have the resources to cope with those numbers.

Legal migration is already adding a city the size of Bristol to our numbers every single year. Is it physically possible to build houses, schools, hospitals and infrastructure equivalent to the size of Bristol in one year? What about the additional hundreds of thousands?

Btw, i'm not advocating for zero migration, I'm advocating for control.
Click to expand...

In fairness to him he has a long history of inviting asylum seekers to casa de Bob. I'm starting to think he's a fruit farmer.
 
BobKowalski said:
I asked a question. They already risk death. What is your deterrent?

Migration via boat crossing annually is around 300k into the EU - that is 29 countries. Chances of 300k ending up here are remote.

In other news, Italy, in common with other EU countries has steadily been increasing its non-EU immigration quota because, like us, it needs the labour. Kind of feels counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...
The risk of travelling across the channel in a dinghy is the deterrent. Some choose to take that risk but many don't so there is already a deterrent. I actually can't really understand the emotive aspect because the migrants are not fleeing bombs or war, they're fleeing France and Europe which is actually quite a nice place.

If you read this thread and the views on the UK then you wonder why the hell anybody would bother to come here.

Clearly these people are being sold a life in the UK by criminal gangs who want them to take risks because of the money involved. People in Calais have otherwise been jumping into the back of lorries bound for the UK for years, it's nothing new and we still haven't built a border processing centre in France to stop them. Perhaps attacking the criminal gangs facilitating the risky crossing would be a good start instead?

Losing freedom of movement is the reason why we have skill shortages and we should of tried to retain that where possible but we haven't so here we are.
 
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