The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

For a start change the law. Leave the ECHR, announce that anyone coming over on small boats is breaking the law and is a criminal and no one would be allowed to stay. Patrol the waters, you could look into creating a processing facility on a smaller island but that might not be feasible. You should definitely look into creating secure bases that can house people where you wouldn't be free to roam about the local community. Look to get those detained removed from the country as quickly as possible. Threaten some nations with sanctions if they refuse to take back their people. At the same time you could offer to cooperate with the French in order to properly police things on their end.

After a short period of that it would remove most invcentives for trying to cross on a small boat and the numbers attempting to do so would drop like a stone. 

Not saying I necessarily agree with that by the way but it would be more effective than what we have now 

We will not leave the ECHR and sit alongside Belarus and Russia as the only countries outside of it. 

The rest does not represent an easy, or feasible, fix. 

Our court and tribunal system can't process the appeals. 

Secure bases, yes, achievable and it would dilute our appeal. 

The French don't want to cooperate. They want people gone.

What incentives should go? 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

We will not leave the ECHR and sit alongside Belarus and Russia as the only countries outside of it. 

The rest does not represent an easy, or feasible, fix. 

Our court and tribunal system can't process the appeals. 

Secure bases, yes, achievable and it would dilute our appeal. 

The French don't want to cooperate. They want people gone.

What incentives should go? 

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

[egg]

36 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I wonder if those people saying "leave the EHCR" are really happy to accept all the consequences that would follow.

They haven't thought about it in truth. Even Albania are in it. Farcical to suggest that we leave. 

[egg]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

Ok, I forgot the Vatican. 

You were asked about the steps we could take to solve the issue. You then mentioned leaving the ECHR. Are you or are you not advocating that we leave the ECHR? If so, what do you think it would achieve re illegal immigration? 

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Have you been in the accommodation?

No, because it had to be shut down because of structural issues and is now derelict. Before being used for asylum seekers it had been shut for 10 years and let go to rack and ruin.

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right so deport those whose identities we can ascertain, put resources into finding out the true identities of others, detain those who refuse to say. Not a perfect system by any means but would see numbers fall.

But you can only deport if countries take them back, which again is unlikely to happen (and also likely puts those people in a lot of danger).

Edited Wednesday at 16:39 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

Well in that case we could just open fire at anyone coming over in a boat then surely? I meant legal ways to deal with them.

Edited Wednesday at 16:44 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Ok, I forgot the Vatican. 

You were asked about the steps we could take to solve the issue. You then mentioned leaving the ECHR. Are you or are you not advocating that we leave the ECHR? If so, what do you think it would achieve re illegal immigration? 

I won't bother responding to you on this point because you never seem to read things in context. The claim was that nothing could be done to stop the amount of people coming here illegally in small boats. That in my view is untrue. There are lots of things you could do if you wanted to including leaving the ECHR. That is not me advocating for anything, I'm simply saying that that is something which could be done as one of many measures in order to reduce numbers. You could completely disagree with the entire concept of leaving and still concede that it is an option albeit one that we don't want to take at present. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But you can only deport if countries take them back, which again is unlikely to happen (and also likely puts those people in a lot of danger).

Innocent British people who have been assaulted by some of these people are out in a lot of danger too through no fault of their own.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well in that case we could just open fire at anyone coming over in a boat then surely? I meant legal ways to deal with them.

Leaving the ECHR isn't illegal.

[benjii]

33 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

We could just gas them all.

I'm not saying we should. I'm saying we could.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Leaving the ECHR isn't illegal.

But it's not feasible as you've identified.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not feasible as you've identified.

How so?

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

We could just gas them all.

I'm not saying we should. I'm saying we could.

How is leaving the ECHR comparable to mass murder ?

[egg]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I won't bother responding to you on this point because you never seem to read things in context. The claim was that nothing could be done to stop the amount of people coming here illegally in small boats. That in my view is untrue. There are lots of things you could do if you wanted to including leaving the ECHR. That is not me advocating for anything, I'm simply saying that that is something which could be done as one of many measures in order to reduce numbers. You could completely disagree with the entire concept of leaving and still concede that it is an option albeit one that we don't want to take at present. 

Again, you're rowing backwards. 

You stated that there were steps that we could easily take. 

You then mentioned camps or whatever for people but acknowledged it would take time - so not quick or easy. 

You mentioned withdrawing other things but haven't spelt them out. 

You mention leaving the ECHR then say that's only a could.

What steps that we could easily take does that leave? Indeed, what steps at all?

If you want to make a point, back it up. Don't row backwards and then say it wasn't actually your point!! 

Again, should we leave the ECHR to assist in fighting illegal immigration? It's a simple yes or no. 

 

[benjii]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

How is leaving the ECHR comparable to mass murder ?

I'm not saying we should! I'm not advocating!

 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, benjii said:

We could just gas them all.

I'm not saying we should. I'm saying we could.

Quite. 

I hate flip flopping. Take a position or don't.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Again, you're rowing backwards. 

You stated that there were steps that we could easily take. 

You then mentioned camps or whatever for people but acknowledged it would take time - so not quick or easy. 

You mentioned withdrawing other things but haven't spelt them out. 

You mention leaving the ECHR then say that's only a could.

What steps that we could easily take does that leave? Indeed, what steps at all?

If you want to make a point, back it up. Don't row backwards and then say it wasn't actually your point!! 

Again, should we leave the ECHR to assist in fighting illegal immigration? It's a simple yes or no. 

 

I give up. You're incapable of understanding.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, benjii said:

I'm not saying we should! I'm not advocating!

 

I never said you did. Gassing everyone is not a serious suggestion. Leaving the ECHR is something that could feasibly happen and coukd well happen at some point in the future therefore it's worthy of discussion unlike mass murder.

[benjii]

I'll summarise Hypo's plan. 

(Sorry, it's not Hypo's plan, it's just a plan).

1) remove human rights

2) more boats in the water (not sure what they do when they find a boat- sink it? Drag it to France? Call Rupert Lowe?)

3) some big camps. Sort of concentrate the people together.

4) Anyone who can be identified back home. 

5) Anyone who can't be identified > off to Rwanda / the moon.

[hypochondriac]

Pointing out the realistic steps a hypothetical government or country could take if they wanted to is not the same thing as advocating for those steps or even supporting that position. How is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, benjii said:

I'll summarise Hypo's plan. 

(Sorry, it's not Hypo's plan, it's just a plan).

1) remove human rights

2) more boats in the water (not sure what they do when they find a boat- sink it? Drag it to France? Call Rupert Lowe?)

3) some big camps. Sort of concentrate the people together.

4) Anyone who can be identified back home. 

5) Anyone who can't be identified > off to Rwanda / the moon.

Do countries not signed up to the ECHR have human rights ?

[benjii]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Do countries not signed up to the ECHR have human rights ?

In Europe? Not particularly. Just Vatican City.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

In Europe? Not particularly. Just Vatican City.

That's not what I said.

[aintforever]

I’m in favour of the one in one out system, except I would change it so that for every genuine asylum seeker that rocks up I would sling out a lazy, entitled, scrounging Northerner. Dump that at Calais with nothing except a rubber dingy and see if they have the nuts to make the crossing to the country they claim to love.

Edited Wednesday at 17:03 by aintforever

[egg]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I give up. You're incapable of understanding.

When you almost commit, you backtrack and sit on the fence. 

You've not committed to one of the easy steps that you said were available. Not one. 

That's because there are none.

Farcical posting from you again. 

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How so?

Oh, OK, so the only easy way to deal with this is to leave the ECHR? And even then, what are you doing with those that come across on boats, taking into account that you can't just send them back as we've identified before.

Edited Wednesday at 17:09 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Pointing out the realistic steps a hypothetical government or country could take if they wanted to is not the same thing as advocating for those steps or even supporting that position. How is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Don’t worry mate you are trying to reasonably set out a position. Some people engage with different opinions and can understand your perspective and others are will fully difficult or just hard of understanding. It’s not you.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's a farce. The whole fucking thing is a farce, and there is no way to stop it. Successive governments have tried and failed. The issue is global inequality, and it will continue until that is solved.

Machine gun boats would stop it - for the rubber boats only of course, shooting the actual people in them would be inhumane.

[Sir Ralph]

21 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Oh, OK, so the only easy way to deal with this is to leave the ECHR? And even then, what are you doing with those that come across on boats, taking into account that you can't just send them back as we've identified before.

Holding centre in the countryside for a significant period if they return. Who wants to spend a year or so sat in a holding centre in Gloucester when you could be free in France. Again it’s about disincentivising

Edited Wednesday at 17:30 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Machine gun boats would stop it - for the rubber boats only of course, shooting the actual people in them would be inhumane.

Or a massive wave machine on the south coast?

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

When you almost commit, you backtrack and sit on the fence. 

You've not committed to one of the easy steps that you said were available. Not one. 

That's because there are none.

Farcical posting from you again. 

Don’t agree and seems a pile on to Hypo when he is only offering options. As Farmer states the issue isn’t going away so does seem like any even half solution is going to be Draconian and at odds with some of the rights we expect 

[aintforever]

If we re-joined the EU couldn’t we just dump them back in France?

[egg]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t agree and seems a pile on to Hypo when he is only offering options. As Farmer states the issue isn’t going away so does seem like any even half solution is going to be Draconian and at odds with some of the rights we expect 

None of his options are his suggestions for what he would like to see happen, and none of them are the easy steps that he suggested could be taken.

There's no pile on - he makes a lot of noise so he can't complain when his comments/suggested options/possibilities/semi positions (or whatever they are supposed to be) are reality checked or questioned. 

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Don’t worry mate you are trying to reasonably set out a position. Some people engage with different opinions and can understand your perspective and others are will fully difficult or just hard of understanding. It’s not you.

Until he says that his points aren't actually his position, but hypothetical options. 

To be fair to you, although I don't agree with a lot of your views, your position is clear. 

[AlexLaw76]

[Sir Ralph]

37 minutes ago, egg said:

Until he says that his points aren't actually his position, but hypothetical options. 

To be fair to you, although I don't agree with a lot of your views, your position is clear. 

Thanks I’m blushing 🤣 

Edited Wednesday at 18:22 by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

Unless the governments standing drastically improves , there could be a chance we see the military in the channel acting as some sort of wall, even for a short period.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, egg said:

We will not leave the ECHR and sit alongside Belarus and Russia as the only countries outside of it. 

Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand. 
 

 

 

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand. 
 

 

 

Nice one Kemi 👍

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Having a more robust policy worked very well for Australia. We've never tried it so there's no evidence it wouldn't work.

Of course it will work, just like it did in Australia. If absolutely nobody who arrived on a small boat was allowed to settle, then they wouldn’t come.

This where we’re heading anyway, it’s just a question of when, and how much political damage the Uni parties suffer getting there. Within 10 years we’ll be outside any treaties or conventions that stop us, we’ll be shipping people straight to a third party country, or some god forsaken crown territory, and we’ll be treating them like shite. There will be a race to the bottom, with every European country creating a more hostile environment than their neighbours. 

Edited Wednesday at 19:02 by Lord Duckhunter

[egg]

53 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand. 
 

 

 

I know Australia compete in Eurovision, but they aren't actually in Europe mate. Ditto the others. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

If we re-joined the EU couldn’t we just dump them back in France?

No. HTH.

[The Kraken]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

I know Australia compete in Eurovision, but they aren't actually in Europe mate. Ditto the others. 

See above, I think (hope) he was doing a funny.

[tdmickey3]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I actually think it's right that as a responsible country we take a reasonable share of people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives as long as they are willing to contribute to the country and share our values. I just don't believe that anyone entering the country illegally should be allowed to stay because it simply incentives everyone to try it. 

 

6 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

That does not explain how does it ?

 

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Are you blind?

 

I asked how your post explained how

[tdmickey3]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I wonder if those people saying "leave the EHCR" are really happy to accept all the consequences that would follow.

They will until they realise what it really means

[egg]

9 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

They will until they realise what it really means

Indeed. If the expectation is that leaving will impact on illegal immigration, people are forgetting he UN Refugee Convention.

As long as there's an English channel, and people's lives are shit in their home countries, people will come here. 

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. If the expectation is that leaving will impact on illegal immigration, people are forgetting he UN Refugee Convention.

As long as there's an English channel, and people's lives are shit in their home countries, people will come here. 

And your second paragraph is my thoughts exactly.

Until then, we really should concentrate on the fact that this is approx 5% of our immigration figures, and that we really need to work on the issues with the other 95% of legal migration before concentrating time and money on the impossible task.

[egg]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

And your second paragraph is my thoughts exactly.

Until then, we really should concentrate on the fact that this is approx 5% of our immigration figures, and that we really need to work on the issues with the other 95% of legal migration before concentrating time and money on the impossible task.

Exactly. Labour have done pretty well in getting the legal migration numbers down in fairness, but there's a long way to go and it must be addressed. That said, the flag raisers solitary focus is illegal migration. Whilst I agree that the 95% should be the priority issue to address, there's more political currency in the 5%. 

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

And your second paragraph is my thoughts exactly.

Until then, we really should concentrate on the fact that this is approx 5% of our immigration figures, and that we really need to work on the issues with the other 95% of legal migration before concentrating time and money on the impossible task.

Yep can`t post pictures in the news rags of the 95% can they?