UK Politics: Cost of Living Crisis

[A Horse Named Stranger]

49 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The ridiculousness of this plan

 

Hotel Rwanda 2.

Just when you thought they ran out of horrible ideas for movie sequels...

And to those who want to say: That's not funny.

No, it's not.

[Spockydog]

 

[kiko]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Anyone coming across the channel in boat has not only decided to not stay in any of the dozens of safe countries they have travelled through to get here

If only there were some union of European states that could tackle this together. (And afaik still has a rule in place that stops refugees from crossing several European borders.) There was a winning event that stopped you from participating though. With utterly predictable results. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, kiko said:

If only there were some union of European states that could tackle this together. (And afaik still has a rule in place that stops refugees from crossing several European borders.) There was a winning event that stopped you from participating though. With utterly predictable results. 

If that fictious union of European states you talk about, could ever get their act to gether wrt refugees and come up with a solution that doesn't make you turn away in shame, give me a call.

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

OK, but that rather sounds like making my point: that to some people, refugees have no legitimate needs or wants beside immediate physical safety. 

Safety should be the overwhelming first concern if you are fleeing from your home. You just want to get away from danger and to survive.

Moving somewhere that has good job prospects, people speak English, has a good social security system and public transport should be a very much more secondary concern. Do we need to accommodate everyone who wishes to live in a nicer country just because they want to? Of course we don't, thats why countries have immigration systems. 

That someone would move through dozens of countries where safety is guaranteed (which also have good social services and facilities and probably tick most boxes) just to get to the UK suggest that safety has long since ceased to be a primary motivator.

Once you have turned down the opportunity to live in dozens of safe countries you simply become an economic migrant, which is what I think many of these people really are, they are just doing it illegally. Remember almost all these channel crossings are trying to get away from 'checks notes'.... France.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

In any case even if this is how one thinks, there's surely a duty on countries to take in some asylum seekers and refugees to avoid countries on the borders of conflict areas being overwhelmed. 

Yes and that's why legal immigration and asylum is a thing. I've already said that we should improve the legal system, to improve conditions and make processing a lot simpler. That doesn't mean we should close our eyes to illegal immigration and pretend like it's totally fine. Almost all of these conversations seem to conflate illegal and legal migration as if they are the same thing. 

Quote

If only there were some union of European states that could tackle this together. (And afaik still has a rule in place that stops refugees from crossing several European borders.) There was a winning event that stopped you from participating though. With utterly predictable results. 

Did you really think this was a smart statement?

 

[Spockydog]

Legal Immigration Under Patel = Dear Rich White People, give us £100k and we'll grant you a visa and non-dom status. We might even chuck in a peerage against the advice of MI6.

Illegal Immigration Under Patel = Everybody Else.

 

 

 

 

[kiko]

38 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If that fictious union of European states you talk about, could ever get their act to gether wrt refugees and come up with a solution that doesn't make you turn away in shame, give me a call.

 

That's why I carefully formulated "could tackle it together". It's still better than Patel's solution of sending them to Madagascar.

[Spockydog]

They are assuming that Northerners are every bit as cuntish as the Westminster Tories.

Imma go out on a limb here and say that this shit is not going to fly up North. Without wishing to stereotype anyone, my experience of Northerners has been that they are generally nicer people than us Londoners. They are friendlier, kinder, and I'm pretty sure many will be looking at these plans with horror.

[kiko]

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Did you really think this was a smart statement?

Considering the time line of the emigration numbers, absolutely. I'm certainly not a fan of the Dublin regulation, but it certainly protected your country. That this was no big topic during your brexit shenanigans had always surprised me. 

And I do think this huge problem can be only solved together. As you should know.

[Spockydog]

 

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, kiko said:

Considering the time line of the emigration numbers, absolutely. I'm certainly not a fan of the Dublin regulation, but it certainly protected your country. That this was no big topic during your brexit shenanigans had always surprised me. 

And I do think this huge problem can be only solved together. As you should know.

Well there's a number of problems with your statement:

1. The EU has been notoriously bad at dealing with illegal immigration, as has been mentioned.
2. There is no reason why countries need to be part of the EU in order to co-operate on immigration. 
3. It's much harder to deal with people who are trying to evade the systems in place anyway. 

[Spockydog]

It all makes sense now. Nobody is born a racist. Literally nobody.

Why would the father of Tory MP Priti Patel want to stand for Ukip?

"Quick, Priti, pull up the fucking drawbridge."

 

[Werthead]

 

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

Had to stop reading that thread. Too depressing. We have too many morally bankrupt cunts amongst us who are happy to put up with this shit. The worst of them go out of their way to defend it.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Had to stop reading that thread. Too depressing. We have too many morally bankrupt cunts amongst us who are happy to put up with this shit. The worst of them go out of their way to defend it.

I stopped reading it at #FBPE #FBPA Woke and proud. 

That told me everything I needed to know.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I stopped reading it at #FBPE #FBPA Woke and proud. 

Ofc, you did.

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That told me everything I wanted to know.

FTFY

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Almost all of these conversations seem to conflate illegal and legal migration as if they are the same thing. 

As noted, this is mainly because the policy of the UK government for many years now has been to discourage legal migration, which then drives an increase in illegal migration, which makes it easier for them to scapegoat refugees.

As for the rest of the post, see earlier comments:

2 hours ago, mormont said:

OK, but that rather sounds like making my point: that to some people, refugees have no legitimate needs or wants beside immediate physical safety. That's not a great attitude to have about other human beings, IMO.

[Zorral]

You know fleeing starvation and no work tends come along with fleeing bombs, soldiers, imprisonment for disliking the regime that caused the conditions of starvation and no work -- so only King Solomon probably would have the wisdom to certainly recognize a refugee from economic migrant, yes?

Why Rwanda for these matters?  This is where Putin thought dissident Ukrainians should be sent too, until he decided genocide was a more viable option -- just as Hitler decided genocide was more viable than Mozambique as an option for the Jews and non-German types, as he controlled Mozambique no more than Russia controls  Rwanda.

 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

OK, but that rather sounds like making my point: that to some people, refugees have no legitimate needs or wants beside immediate physical safety. That's not a great attitude to have about other human beings, IMO.

I know I saw that post, it's just a sly dig. But you haven't really addressed anything I've said here at all.. you're only answer is that 'oh well you don't have a great attitude to towards other human beings'. Which honestly is just a way to make a personal attack. 
Most people have lots of empathy for refugees and asylum seekers, where that gets a little thin is where people are trying to get around the system and take places away from genuine asylum seekers with real needs for refuge and safety, when their only need is to live in a nicer country.

 

[kiko]

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well there's a number of problems with your statement:

1. The EU has been notoriously bad at dealing with illegal immigration, as has been mentioned.
2. There is no reason why countries need to be part of the EU in order to co-operate on immigration. 
3. It's much harder to deal with people who are trying to evade the systems in place anyway. 

Not going to argue with you on 1. and certainly not going to defend the current EU immigration policy. But nice work again from distracting from Patel's Madagascar plans. Sorry for helping you with that.