Current Affairs

[towny44]

I don’t doubt that some of the migrants are fleeing oppression etc but in my opinion the majority are economic opportunists.
I think the Government are right in trying to stem the flow of migrant using the Rwanda experiment…illegal enter into this country has to have consequences, without them we will look back in ten years’ time saying why did we allow this to happen?

Sorry Keith I disagree with you on that. The Rwanda scheme is a desperate attempt by a government that promises big and delivers little ... and is quite honestly a disgrace to everything that the UK supposedly stands for ... in years to come it will be seen as another Windrush from a government willing to spend hundreds of millions on delivering their next failure ... what is this, their 5th or 6th attempt at throwing money and failed promises at the 'problem'?

What worries me most is that these migrants will require support for years to come and will have to use whatever means they can to survive in what is already an overloaded benefit support system. Crime, and everything associated with it will be prevalent in areas where migrants are dumped, this will lead to even more ghetto’s being created.

Some will but as the empirical evidence continually shows, the net impact to the UK economy of immigration has been positive. Approximately 1 in 3 of the company I work for are immigrants and I would say the company is the richer for it ... and that is the norm in the industry and in many others. People focus too much on the negatives, and there are negatives, but that is highlighting failures in other systems such as policing, social services and other government bodies.

Whilst it may seem harsh, the way to stop the influx of migrants is to let them know that if they arrive here by boat they will be sent back by plane.

That would be yet another nail in the coffin of the UKs record on human rights. Of course we could do what the government has laughably threatened, and leave the ECHR ... that would nicely align the UK with Russia and Belarus (and even Belarus has applied to join the ECHR).

Ken, whilst the net effect on the economy from immigration might well be positive, it could be much higher if we were able to eliminate the illegal element. In fact if we were able to select from all those wanting to come to the UK, and choose only those who would be of benefit, like other countries do, then that would be even better. But to do this the French have to agree to take back all illegal immigrants so they can be properly vetted and approved. This would reduce the demand for illegal entry and deal a death blow to the trafficking smugglers.

[Kendhni]

I don’t doubt that some of the migrants are fleeing oppression etc but in my opinion the majority are economic opportunists.
I think the Government are right in trying to stem the flow of migrant using the Rwanda experiment…illegal enter into this country has to have consequences, without them we will look back in ten years’ time saying why did we allow this to happen?

Sorry Keith I disagree with you on that. The Rwanda scheme is a desperate attempt by a government that promises big and delivers little ... and is quite honestly a disgrace to everything that the UK supposedly stands for ... in years to come it will be seen as another Windrush from a government willing to spend hundreds of millions on delivering their next failure ... what is this, their 5th or 6th attempt at throwing money and failed promises at the 'problem'?

What worries me most is that these migrants will require support for years to come and will have to use whatever means they can to survive in what is already an overloaded benefit support system. Crime, and everything associated with it will be prevalent in areas where migrants are dumped, this will lead to even more ghetto’s being created.

Some will but as the empirical evidence continually shows, the net impact to the UK economy of immigration has been positive. Approximately 1 in 3 of the company I work for are immigrants and I would say the company is the richer for it ... and that is the norm in the industry and in many others. People focus too much on the negatives, and there are negatives, but that is highlighting failures in other systems such as policing, social services and other government bodies.

Whilst it may seem harsh, the way to stop the influx of migrants is to let them know that if they arrive here by boat they will be sent back by plane.

That would be yet another nail in the coffin of the UKs record on human rights. Of course we could do what the government has laughably threatened, and leave the ECHR ... that would nicely align the UK with Russia and Belarus (and even Belarus has applied to join the ECHR).

Ken, whilst the net effect on the economy from immigration might well be positive, it could be much higher if we were able to eliminate the illegal element.

A valid point, but on a similar vein it would also be much better for the economy if we got rid of all those claiming benefits. Like everything in life it is better if you trim out the 'drags' and only keep the positive elements, but nothing ever works out like that.

In fact if we were able to select from all those wanting to come to the UK, and choose only those who would be of benefit, like other countries do, then that would be even better.

We have always had that ability but the UK, until recently, chose not to implement it. The question you should be asking is why successive governments, including the current government, do not fully implement this? Probably because there is a bigger picture at play - which is why anyone that thinks there is a simple answer only proves they do not understand the problem.

But to do this the French have to agree to take back all illegal immigrants so they can be properly vetted and approved. This would reduce the demand for illegal entry and deal a death blow to the trafficking smugglers.

The UK chose to exclude itself from agreements on managing immigration with its neighbours ... at what point does the UK stop blaming everyone else for the failings of its own government and border agencies. Maybe, instead of spending hundreds of millions on various failed policies (inc. agreement with Rwanda), they should have spent more on getting the French to help with what is effectively our problem.

To date the estimate is that France is currently intercepting about 65% of attempted crossings, but the UK has not paid promised money to France for maintaining the border (so it has little incentive or obligation to do more). France has requested that the UK open up a legal immigration channel that could be properly policed but the UK has, so far, refused to do so. It is complex and the onus is on the UK to start negotiating with other parties to put back in place all those things it chose to throw away ... that is going to take years.

We keep hearing about France, but there are many other routes being used into the UK that the media have not yet started talking about.

[towny44]

Sorry Keith I disagree with you on that. The Rwanda scheme is a desperate attempt by a government that promises big and delivers little ... and is quite honestly a disgrace to everything that the UK supposedly stands for ... in years to come it will be seen as another Windrush from a government willing to spend hundreds of millions on delivering their next failure ... what is this, their 5th or 6th attempt at throwing money and failed promises at the 'problem'?


Some will but as the empirical evidence continually shows, the net impact to the UK economy of immigration has been positive. Approximately 1 in 3 of the company I work for are immigrants and I would say the company is the richer for it ... and that is the norm in the industry and in many others. People focus too much on the negatives, and there are negatives, but that is highlighting failures in other systems such as policing, social services and other government bodies.


That would be yet another nail in the coffin of the UKs record on human rights. Of course we could do what the government has laughably threatened, and leave the ECHR ... that would nicely align the UK with Russia and Belarus (and even Belarus has applied to join the ECHR).

Ken, whilst the net effect on the economy from immigration might well be positive, it could be much higher if we were able to eliminate the illegal element.

A valid point, but on a similar vein it would also be much better for the economy if we got rid of all those claiming benefits. Like everything in life it is better if you trim out the 'drags' and only keep the positive elements, but nothing ever works out like that.

In fact if we were able to select from all those wanting to come to the UK, and choose only those who would be of benefit, like other countries do, then that would be even better.

We have always had that ability but the UK, until recently, chose not to implement it. The question you should be asking is why successive governments, including the current government, do not fully implement this? Probably because there is a bigger picture at play - which is why anyone that thinks there is a simple answer only proves they do not understand the problem.

But to do this the French have to agree to take back all illegal immigrants so they can be properly vetted and approved. This would reduce the demand for illegal entry and deal a death blow to the trafficking smugglers.

The UK chose to exclude itself from agreements on managing immigration with its neighbours ... at what point does the UK stop blaming everyone else for the failings of its own government and border agencies. Maybe, instead of spending hundreds of millions on various failed policies (inc. agreement with Rwanda), they should have spent more on getting the French to help with what is effectively our problem.

To date the estimate is that France is currently intercepting about 65% of attempted crossings, but the UK has not paid promised money to France for maintaining the border (so it has little incentive or obligation to do more). France has requested that the UK open up a legal immigration channel that could be properly policed but the UK has, so far, refused to do so. It is complex and the onus is on the UK to start negotiating with other parties to put back in place all those things it chose to throw away ... that is going to take years.

We keep hearing about France, but there are many other routes being used into the UK that the media have not yet started talking about.

You keep stating that the UK is to blame because it failed to make agreements with other EU countries, I really would like to see your proof of this Ken, because as you say it's not a simple problem, so I imagine your evidence could well be from a biased source, like the Guardian, which will have spun the story to suit it's own agenda.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Towny you've misunderstood again. It was all working so well under the EU. It's Brexit that's caused illegal immigration.

[Kendhni]

You keep stating that the UK is to blame because it failed to make agreements with other EU countries, I really would like to see your proof of this Ken, because as you say it's not a simple problem, so I imagine your evidence could well be from a biased source, like the Guardian, which will have spun the story to suit it's own agenda.

I didn't say that 'we failed to make agreements', I said we threw away agreements we already had ... agreements that, in the main, we chose not to implement. We now have to put in place, and fund, new agreements ... Patel/Johnson have talked about the need for such agreements several times (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually know what they are talking about ... for once).

[towny44]

You keep stating that the UK is to blame because it failed to make agreements with other EU countries, I really would like to see your proof of this Ken, because as you say it's not a simple problem, so I imagine your evidence could well be from a biased source, like the Guardian, which will have spun the story to suit it's own agenda.

I didn't say that 'we failed to make agreements', I said we threw away agreements we already had ... agreements that, in the main, we chose not to implement. We now have to put in place, and fund, new agreements ... Patel/Johnson have talked about the need for such agreements several times (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually know what they are talking about ... for once).

Ken, can you be more precise about exactly which existing agreements we threw away, and what the details of these agreements were? The only thing I vaguely remember was that France wanted the UK to accept that all asylum seekers wanting to get to the UK would be processed by us and become our responsibility, thus eliminating their worry of the Sangatte refugee camp. Which would not have been acceptable to either the Labour or Conservative parties.

[Kendhni]

Sorry John if that is all you remember (vaguely or otherwise) then you are starting from too low and/or too selective a position for me to bring you up to date. I suggest you start reading about major events going on in this country over the last 10 years or so.

[towny44]

Sorry John if that is all you remember (vaguely or otherwise) then you are starting from too low and/or too selective a position for me to bring you up to date. I suggest you start reading about major events going on in this country over the last 10 years or so.

Ken, you really are an annoying piece of work, if you cannot substantiate your claims then please stop making them. It really does not make you appear superior.

[Manoverboard]

... It really does not make you appear superior.

Towny ; if you met Ken you would conclude, imho, that he is knowledgeable rather than superior.

[oldbluefox]

... It really does not make you appear superior.

Towny ; if you met Ken you would conclude, imho, that he is knowledgeable rather than superior.

You can be knowledgeable without being superior. The two are separable.

[Mervyn and Trish]

One can be knowledgeable without being dismissive of others opinions.

[Ray B]

To me, Ken comes across as someone who take a great interest in politics and current affairs, and put seems to put up good points for discussion. Sometimes way above my knowledge of the subject, and maybe others.

[Kendhni]

Sorry John if that is all you remember (vaguely or otherwise) then you are starting from too low and/or too selective a position for me to bring you up to date. I suggest you start reading about major events going on in this country over the last 10 years or so.

Ken, you really are an annoying piece of work, if you cannot substantiate your claims then please stop making them. It really does not make you appear superior.

You tried to troll me, I called you on it and if that makes you feel inferior then that is something you probably need to address within yourself. I do not for one minute believe you are so ignorant of the topic that you need to ask fake questions ... was it maybe a failed attempt in trying to make yourself look superior?

There was nothing controversial, or anything that should be news to anyone vaguely interested in the topic, within the point I made, apart from possibly the use of '... threw away ...' rather than (maybe) '... chose to no longer participate in ...'.

[Kendhni]

Looks like the government is moving to their next plan - and actually taking ownership.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/small-boat-pi ... 00157.html

It will be interesting to see what the ECHR will have to say on some of the proposals.

[david63]

I see we have a date for Scotxit - 19th October 2023

[oldbluefox]

I see we have a date for Scotxit - 19th October 2023

Now that's going to be interesting.
Personally if that is what they decide then so be it but no half in, half out measures and they can pay their share of the national debt.
Let the Scots decide on this (second) chance of a lifetime.

Independence may actually suit the Tories since without the presence of the SNP in Westminster their majority will be even greater, and more room for the opposition parties to sit

[Ray B]

True what the opposition say, she has this obsession with a referendum instead of the more important issues in Scotland

[oldbluefox]

True what the opposition say, she has this obsession with a referendum instead of the more important issues in Scotland

That's true Ray but they keep electing her.

[oldbluefox]

Just been reported that Dame Deborah James has passed away.
What an inspirational lady!
RIP

[Stephen]

R.I.P Deborah

Dame Deborah James: Cancer campaigner dies aged 40 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61451495

[Mervyn and Trish]

Yes very sad. An amazing woman.

[Mervyn and Trish]

And as for Scotland yes their decision. But agree no half measures, they get their share of the assets and the debt. And if they want anything from the UK post independence, such as defence, they pay for it at full cost. No more subsidy from the rest of the UK.

[Ranchi]

Couldn’t believe the First Minister used “Well we say ‘yes – and we are the people’” in her speech yesterday. The subject deserves better.

[Onelife]

Just been reported that Dame Deborah James has passed away.
What an inspirational lady!
RIP

Her final words will save thousands and inspire millions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBx88k4a-Q

RIP

[david63]

One thing about Scotexit is that if the result is no then Mrs Krankie's political career is over