Danny
Member
Posts: 10,469
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 9:04:18 GMT
Oh for a grown up government of any political hue. It cannot happen under FPP. To win you need a larger voter block than anyone else, but a minority of maybe only 1/4 is big enough. So a policy which appeals to 1/4 but disadvantages or harms 3/4 and harms the nation as a whole becomes a winning strategy. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,469
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 9:06:49 GMT
It would have been better to stay-and build on the civil society , emancipation of women, and "normal life" being constructed over two decades by devoted hardworking NGOs, UN agencies -and the Afghan people. A few troops,and over time a less corrupt and more appropriate governance model would have been a modest price to pay for the good of Afhhanistan. Blair explained the US thinking on invading others. It was to punish them. They are being punished. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 9:11:04 GMT
TW
@"but there is also a need to reduce the 'pull' factors "
The one which is always mentioned seems to be family/friends in UK. Plus English being a first "other" language".
That is a pull factor that won't go away. And remember that those being pulled by that factor are a fraction of the numbers who stay in France.
This , of course, is usually stated as a reason why UK should take more. Very few Brits , I suspect, will want to adopt the French model of racial harmony.
|
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Nov 25, 2021 9:16:46 GMT
@ TW junior ""I don't want the RW press to inflame the issues but the polling is quite clear and Starmer would be foolish (politically speaking) to push for the kind of 'open door' policy that a small minority of Brits want""
What evidence is there that an "open door" on saving asylum seekers crossing the channel is wanted by "a small minority"? I would hope that a majority of Brits want them to have a safe crossing and then a fair decision on whether they can stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Nov 25, 2021 9:21:21 GMT
I notice Radio 4 is once again siding with right-wing hardliners. In interviewing the Tory immigration minister this morning on Today, it wasn`t even put to him that the UK government should provide safe crossings.
Instead weasel phrases went unchallenged, like "we are doing everything possible to stop these tragedies". A simple response would have been "that`s a lie".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 9:27:50 GMT
colin jib Some polling on Afghanistan from Aug'21 yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/16/britons-react-collapse-afghanistanFrom which I'll clip: ' Last week, YouGov research showed found that 44% of Britons supported the withdrawal of western troops from Afghanistan, compared to 26% who were opposed. Now, with Afghanistan falling back under complete Taliban control for the first time since 2001, people tend to think it was the wrong decision to pull military support out of the country'
(IIRC there was also some polling that asked if UK should have stayed 'unilaterally' but once US signed a deal with the Taliban (Feb'20 [1]) and decided to pull out then rest of ISAF had little realistic choice but to also pull out their troops) yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/19/britons-tend-support-resettlement-afghan-talibanI'm not sure of the exact numbers we did get out but it certainly wasn't everyone we had a moral duty to get out. However, how do we know if those now turning up on dinghies in Kent are the most deserving cases? Given the huge price the human trafficking gangs charge and likely some 'awareness' of those landing in Kent to claim 'political refugee' status then it is no simple matter to decide who is 'legal' and who is not. Opinions will obviously differ on such an emotive issue but the current situation can't continue. For my 2c then whilst stating that all people who arrive in UK by non-approved routes will be classified as 'illegal' sounds harsh then we have to end the human misery or human trafficking and the criminal gangs who profit from that trade. To 'soften' that harsh approach then we should ensure 'legal' immigration routes and process are streamlined and fast tracked (as per some Raab comments). IMO of course [1] Whilst signed under Trump then Biden supported that agreement www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_113694.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 9:42:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Nov 25, 2021 9:57:49 GMT
If you have data to the contrary please provide it. I'm not blaming this tragedy on Brexit because most of these migrants would try to reach UK anyhow but it appears to be a fact that we can't stop them coming to the UK because of Brexit. True but wasn't brexit supposed to give us the autonomy and control to manage this issue more effectively. That expectation was a total sham of course because issues like this always need trust and effective international cooperation which brexit has destroyed. Having spent many years in the MOJ, often coming across the problems of deporting offenders back to their country of origin I could see brexit was going to make a serious problem worse and it has. Indeed. It is an undeniable fact that the UK withdrew from the EU-wide agreement on the return of 3rd country migrants at the start of this year. www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/opinion/2021/post_brexit_uk_has_not_taken_back_control_of_immigrationand commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 25, 2021 10:04:54 GMT
There doesn't seem to be much recognition in the UK yet of the likely profound impact on EU development of the new German coalition.
The (limited) UK press coverage of the new government's policies seems to focus mainly on climate change and covid, but there'[s a very different take on things in Spain. Here (as I'm temporarily basking by the Med), what's seen as more notable is the strong emphasis in the coalition document on loosening Merkel's stranglehold over EU development.
In El País today I read that "In the document presented this Wednesday by the Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals, the word Europe appears 254 times compared with 144 mentions of Germany... Berlin is open to reforming the spending rules of the EU countries, is relaxed about the issuance of joint European debt under the Next Generation EU support plan and backs a banking union."
There's even more to delight folk like me, and horrify others:
"The pact signed by the three parties doesn't amount to a revolution. But it does give signs of greater European lift-off, including treaty changes ultimately leading to a federation of European states. That's not on the cards in the medium term, but lays out the path the men and women now in charge in Berlin want to follow."
The paper goes on to quote Guntram Wolff, of the Bruegel Institute in Brussels: "The text gives the impression of a government that firmly backs strong European integration, with an unambiguous commitment to the rule of law and a mention of treaty changes."
(my translation, which is a bit loose in places in the interests of easy reading).
I'll leave it to others to react to this, and assess what the polling implications are likely to be when UK media take these changes on board. I guess one line will be, "There you go. Germany hell-bent on creating the 4th Reich. We're better off out of it." And another might be, "It's the right path for Europe. In an increasingly divided, dog-eat-dog world, it's a case of united we stand, divided we fall. But we'd rather paddle our own canoe, actually."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:05:21 GMT
TW @"but there is also a need to reduce the 'pull' factors " The one which is always mentioned seems to be family/friends in UK. Plus English being a first "other" language". That is a pull factor that won't go away. And remember that those being pulled by that factor are a fraction of the numbers who stay in France. This , of course, is usually stated as a reason why UK should take more. Very few Brits , I suspect, will want to adopt the French model of racial harmony. There are various 'pull' factors and of course we can't change family/friends or language factors. Perhaps I'd have been better to say 'stay' factors. IE At the moment then anyone showing up on a dinghy in Kent will have a prolonged stay in a hotel with very high probability of staying in UK as the 'do bad' lawyer circus and their (naive and counter-productive IMO) 'moral' and financial backers want them to stay. I appreciate as well as the legal issues there are also 'logistic' issues. Patel might well win the upcoming legal battle but there is the 'logistic' issues of what to then do with people who have no legal right to stay in UK and FWIU then that is causing some of the delay on fixing the problem. Hopefully Winter will see the illegal route trafficking drop but as we saw yesterday these people are desperate so sadly I doubt y'days tragedy will be the last we see in the coming months. However, if the likelihood of being able to stay permanently in UK drops then the 'pull' of come2calais.org to get to UK and paying human trafficking gangs and risking ones own life to get into UK should also drop. NB I would support 'softening' of legal immigration but I fear if we 'do nothing' then UK will go the same way as France, Italy, Sweden[1] in their views of all immigration. I don't want to see that happen to UK but polling suggests that if we don't start fixing the problem of 'illegal' immigration then we might well move a lot more anti-immigration in this country (and again that is something I don't want to see) Fans of the TV series Spooks might recall www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/series1_ep2.shtml . Whilst that is fictional it's a disturbingly 'plausible scenario' given current events. There will certainly be what is currently and thankfully only a small minority of people in UK who will wish to see the immigration crisis worsen in order for them to push a much harsher anit-immigration policy (including to those who have full legal right to live in UK) and get that kind of govt elected and making policy in UK. [1] Quick tangent on Sweden given I mentioned the rise of Sweden Democrats (nationalist, anti-immigration and right-wing populists) in polling t'other day WRT to weak and unstable governments: Sweden's first female PM resigns hours after appointmentwww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59400539Relevance to UK would be RUK jumping on that bandwagon or the highly toxic English Democrats or BNP becoming more of a force in local-national elections. FPTP would mean RUK or any Far-Right anti-immigration party would very unlikely win any seats in a GE (although they might very well split the RoC vote and deny CON lots of seats) but in a more PR based system then we might well end up with what is likely to be the next 'stable' Swedish and Italian govts where a Far-Right anti-immigration party is in the coalition (head of it in case of Italy). So I'd advise the PR types to be 'careful what you wish for' (eg it's plausible to see parties after UK GE'24 agree to a more PR style electoral system in UK and then in the next GE see RUK become 'king makers' to a CON govt) |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 25, 2021 10:05:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 25, 2021 10:08:39 GMT
@james E - indeed. Under the Dublin Regulation the UK could return any migrants to France for processing. There need be no issues about illegal crossings, because they would be pointless endeavours.
So yes, the developing crisis, and the deaths arising from this, are all a direct consequence of the loss of control of our border procedures that Johnson's Brexit deal has entailed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:08:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 25, 2021 10:13:38 GMT
somerjohn - very interesting. I'm not very knowledgeable on German politics. I expect we will see the continuation and extension another of the Brexiter paradoxes: the simultaneously held views that the EU is about to fall apart while also about to become a superstate. How can that be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:26:35 GMT
TW
Thanks.
I think Brits are , on the whole, fair minded and compassionate. At present any Afghan, I suspect , is likely to be thought of with great sympathy. But its interesting to see Denmark, for example declaring Syria safe and repatriating their Syrian immigrants.
To be frank, if the European Continent is expected to take anyone with a story of Brutal Government and economic deprivation, then there won't be enough room for emigrants from ME and Sub Saharan Africa. And The Channel is no different to the Med and the Aegean.
I'm not sure what the answer is longer term-except people happy in their own country. What chance ?
But I do think that the Channel people traffickers should be targeted with resources and dealt with harshly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:31:03 GMT
Sure. From the Times article :- "The Home Office said that the policy was under review; however, government sources criticised Raab’s suggestion, saying that lifting the ban on asylum seekers working would create another “pull factor” for illegal immigration and pointing out that the Home Office policy was not his responsibility."  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,469
|
Post by Danny on Nov 25, 2021 10:37:39 GMT
how do we know if those now turning up on dinghies in Kent arethe most deserving cases? International law doesnt recognise the concept of 'most' deserving. Either they are deserving of refugee status or they arent. We are signed up to an open ended commitment under international treaties. As it happens, being EU members helped us to avoid these people coming here, but then you for one didnt want that happy situation to continue. |
|
|
|
Post by neila on Nov 25, 2021 10:50:26 GMT
Morning Everyone,
After some hesitation I decided to join up for UKPR2. So far at least the tone of the conversation seems more constructive than the average UKPR thread. Lets try and keep it that way!
On the Dublin Regulations. I assume people are aware that a) almost noboday ever got repatriated from the UK under those regulations and b) that in the years preceding Brexit, there was actually a net INFLOW to the UK under the Dublin Regulations (i.e. more people were deported TO the UK than FROM it). I know that for some people everything from Amazonian deforestation to genital warts is the fault of Brexit, but whatever the reasons for the sudden increase in channel "boat people", the exit of the UK from the Dublin Regulations is unlikely to be a significant factor. As I understand it, the main factor is that a combination of better port security, Covid restrictions and additional border controls under the UK-EU trade deal have made the previously preferred routes on ferries and Eurotunnel less accessible leaving people smugglers to turn to the more dangerous alternative. Although it is hard to be certain, through all the rancour and prejudice, it does seem likely to me that the French have been less than 100% committed to preventing it too.
I am pretty sceptical about the practicality of the proposed "third country processing" arrangements, but if the government were to be able to get them past the courts, the reluctance of the third countries involved, and the logistical difficulties of a hapless and clueless bureaucracy trying to do something tricky and novel, I suspect they would have a very effective dampening effects on the "pull" factors. The migrants waiting in Northern France have their pick of wealthy and safe EU countries to try and make a life in. There will be a point at which spending a fortune and risking death to spend three years in an apartment block in Tirana seems a bad deal compared to travelling to Germany or the Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 25, 2021 11:08:26 GMT
neila - as with @james E. The fact that the dublin Regulations didn't lead to a large level of repatriation while we were EU members is largely irrelevant. The fact that the regulation was there acts as a deterrent anyway, and whatever the reason, the cases of channel crossing by small boat was not an issue anyway, so we didn't have a problem that required such a response, even if the power was there. The central factor remains intact: if we were still in the EU, or at least, had we agreed to remain in the Dublin system, would our ability to cope with the current migrant surge be easier or harder?
|
|
|
|
Post by neila on Nov 25, 2021 11:18:26 GMT
James/Alec
I think you are conflating two things. The Dublin regulations applied to all entrants to the UK from mainland EU, not just boat people. Overall, there has been a decline in total arrivals from mainland EU to the UK despite (perhaps partly because of) our exit from Dublin III. What has happened is that there has been a wholesale shift in tactics, with people smugglers putting people on boats rather than lorries (although as I said, less people total).
The Dublin regulation was never a deterrent. It is almost impossible to use it, frankly. In 2019 the UK deported 263 migrants under Dublin III. In the same year we received 714 migrants under Dublin III. These numbers are tiny in the grand scheme of things. Also the Dublin regulations aren't just about deportation to the first safe country. They also contain provisions on family reunification etc that migrants can use to get legal entry to the UK. I am not expressing a view on the morality of ending those provisions, but the idea that Dublin is a powerful shield against inward migration that the UK has voluntarily laid down is just a myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by neila on Nov 25, 2021 11:32:53 GMT
It's probably worth noting, on a more political level, that the UK government wanted and wants to continue with arrangements for bilateral transfer of asylum seekers (even though, as above, this may well result in more rather than less in the UK). The EU said "No" and the French have yet to agree a bilateral agreement. So the end of this provision isn't just an outcome of Brexit, but of the decision making in the EU as well. There is nothing inevitable about Brexit ending bilateral arrangements on asylum seekers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 12:01:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 25, 2021 12:02:34 GMT
neila - as with @james E. The fact that the dublin Regulations didn't lead to a large level of repatriation while we were EU members is largely irrelevant. The fact that the regulation was there acts as a deterrent anyway, and whatever the reason, the cases of channel crossing by small boat was not an issue anyway, so we didn't have a problem that required such a response, even if the power was there. The central factor remains intact: if we were still in the EU, or at least, had we agreed to remain in the Dublin system, would our ability to cope with the current migrant surge be easier or harder? I don't see being in or out of the EU particularly relevant. The UK is the go to destination for these people, and it's a great country for them to reach...tolerant, generally welcoming. A lot have family connections here as well, and large populations from their native lands. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 13:01:57 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,461
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 25, 2021 13:21:54 GMT
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 39% (-)
LAB: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 10% (+2)
GRN: 5% (-3)
via
@kantar
, 18 - 22 Nov
Chgs. w/ Oct
|
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 25, 2021 13:27:34 GMT
This from the BBC: "Under international law, people have the right to seek asylum in any country they arrive in. They don't have to seek asylum in the first safe country reached. However, an EU-wide law called Dublin III, allows asylum seekers to be sent back to the first member state they were proven to have entered. Between 1 January 2019 and 1 October 2020, 231 migrants who crossed the Channel were returned to mainland Europe using Dublin III. However, the UK is no longer part of this arrangement since leaving the European Union. The UK has not agreed a scheme to replace it, making the transfer of migrants more difficult. Immigration minister Tom Pursglove told MPs on 17 November that only five people had been returned to mainland Europe so far in 2021. " www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793More broadly, it's clear that reducing the number of people taking to the Channel in boats requires a big effort along the hundred miles or more of coast that they're leaving from. What's not clear to me is how we expect to get the French to make that big effort, by being confrontational towards them. If you replace a co-operative model of neighbour-relations with a confrontational one, then there are likely to be problems in achieving co-operation. Not a difficult point to grasp, I'd have thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 25, 2021 13:39:22 GMT
Thought provoking as we here embark on our own new "appalling glare of an eternal present.", archived and tabulate by proboards “To be preserved forever” While I cannot see the article itself (as is the way with Times articles), IMO, "it's on the web forever" has (predictably, with hindsight) become "it's *potentially* on the web forever". Everything that gets posted is a lot of stuff...which costs money to store/keep online....and billions of posts, vides, pictures are being added to that tally ever single day. In human terms, the net, in the sense that we know it, really hasn't been around or very long. Already, the embarassing pics that many posted on Myspace at the age of 14 are long gone, along with the vast bulk of other stuff posted on Myspace. Even most of the music when the site relaunced as 'Myspace II : The Music Site" are gone or no longer accessable. The same goes for many boards like this one, and soon the original UKPR site.`The same with Photobucket, films, other bits and bobs that are online now, most won't be in 20 or 30 years time. If Youtube goes down the pan in 10 years time, nobody is going to preserve the 40 second video of someone's aunt falling over after one too many at Christmas. The rule o thumb remains the same - don't post anything you wouldn't want the whole world to see and don't post anything that can come back and bite you on the bum in ten years time, but, the 'everything's online forever' line has, surely, already been disproven. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Nov 25, 2021 13:43:44 GMT
And maybe saying "lol, everyone makes a mess sometimes" just didn't occur to anyone on his staff, during or afterwards. Did you bother to read the Huff Post artivcle you linked to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 13:46:47 GMT
From the Times article :- "The Home Office said that the policy was under review; however, government sources criticised Raab’s suggestion, saying that lifting the ban on asylum seekers working would create another “pull factor” for illegal immigration and pointing out that the Home Office policy was not his responsibility." Once again, I specifically mentioned Raab. In the section you've clipped from the article I read (when it was first written and 2x more now today) and posted then note the use of 'illegal immigration'. I'll repost the relevant clipped part of my original post To 'soften' that harsh approach then we should ensure 'legal' immigration routes and process are streamlined and fast tracked (as per some Raab comments). IMO of course Where 'that' refers to 'illegal' immigration (and yes, I'm aware the current legal differences between 'legal' and 'illegal' are contentious and somewhat unclear - as the 'do bad' lawyers currently like to exploit). 'Illegal' immigrants would not be given the opportunity to stay and hence could not work in UK and hence a faster process for 'legal' immigration should not be a 'pull factor' for illegal immigration (note I did also mention the 'logistic' issues of implementing a more clearly defined 'legal v illegal' clarification). Hopefully a clearer and slightly softer/more accommodating 'legal' route might even help as a deterrent to the 'illegal' route used by human traffickers with the kind of consequences we saw y'day. If genuine asylum seekers or those who qualify on a non-discrimination points based immigration system know their only way to 'stay' and live+work in UK is via 'legal' routes then hopefully we'd see a lot less trying to get here in dinghies. Hopefully the UK public would then drop 'immigration' as being viewed as an important[1] issue and the Far-Right anti-immigration types would then not grow in appeal as they have done in many EU/rWorld countries. I'm very aware Home Office didn't appreciate Raab's input - which was why I specifically mentioned Raab and not the Home Office. Given your previous posts then I expect we actually have a fairly similar view but I just wanted to clarify my opinion in case it was being misrepresented. PS Not sure why you used emoji as none of this is funny. I'd like UK to be a very welcoming home to people who have the right to live here but I'm also very aware of the anti-immigration views (see various polling) and what is happening in many EUropean countries for various reasons (historic overly 'soft-accommodative' approach (eg Sweden), closer proximity to points of origin (eg Italy), etc.) [1] Repost on YG tracker where folks can look at x-breaks as well. Note immigration dropped down quite low during C19 period, possibly due to a combination of a much more important issue and the much lower 'problem' last year. It rose again shortly after the Afghanistan debacle but has dropped back a bit recently. I fear it will be rising again the next time they ask and become a far more dominant issue unless Patel sorts it, asap. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country?crossBreak=conservative |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 13:49:04 GMT
MARK Thanks. Sorry you couldn't read the article its a very thought provoking one. It references this book :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funes_the_Memoriousand makes some very interesting comparisons with the effects of social media on us all. Thanks for your examples of destroyed archive. I guess fb and twitter are the main repositories of our permanent present. ? |
|
