Who gives a shit about the markets, in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist.
Out of curiosity, in your ideal world how does a company raise money for investment?
I wonder why the Tories didn't do this during their 14 years in government, too soft on refugees?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7970p2wx7ro
She continued: "Illegal migration is tearing our country apart", adding that it was the government's job to "unite our country".
To fair Tommy Ten Names Robinson was making precisely that point with his "Unite the Kingdom" march.
I think that the "Labour" minister, who is tipped to be possibly the next PM, should have gone the whole hog and said that it was the government's job to unite the kingdom. Stephen Lennon would have been so chuffed.
The US and now European NATO allies have pulled out of the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft project.
The project has been subject to deployment delays for the UK (a mere three years to 2026 now) and nobody really knows how much it will cost
A few countries are still in the Boeing project, including the UK, but the withdrawals will inevitably increase costs further because of economies of scale (regardless of MoD optimism).
Just to cap that the UK paid for five AESA radar systems and then reduced the aircraft fleet order to three from the original five, a reduction of 40% capability to save 12% in costs. Anyone want a couple of radar systems, aircraft not included?
The E-7 now stands as another example of MoD procurement failure, marked by unclear initial design, inconsistent leadership, and weak management oversight. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/e7-delays-and-cost-strain-show-uk-procurement-ongoing-issues/
This is mostly a Conservative government disaster, but UK governments really need to grip the MoD
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported? This is only a paper thin step away from the nut case policies of the Tories and Reform on deporting people with ILM status.
This is mostly a Conservative government disaster, but UK governments really need to grip the MoD
This isn't just a problem with the MOD, its the public sector generally. Look at the bill for hotels for asylum seekers. Who the hell negotiated those contracts? If negotiated is even the word for it. It seems to have involved the hotel owners (I wonder if any of them were Tory donors?) thinking of a number, doubling it, then sticking a few tens (or hundreds) of millions on top, just for shits and giggles. Some hapless civil servant (or corrupt minster) then just signing them off.
They were asking whoever is the immigration minister this week, on Newsnight, why they couldn't renegotiate the contracts to reduce costs and apaprently they're all set up with so many clauses that the private hotel owners simply can't lose. They'd have to pay up the contracts, whatever. There is literally nothing the governemnt can do until these contracts run their course.
From a commercial competence point of view, I'm wondering if they got the same team in who negotiated the players contracts and transfer deals at Manchester United?
The whole system seems set up purely to faciiltate rapatious firms to rinse the taxpayer for every penny we've got!
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported? This is only a paper thin step away from the nut case policies of the Tories and Reform on deporting people with ILM status.
If they're genuine asylum seekers then they're escaping persecution, war or violence in their home country no? So once that threat ceases to exist they'd surely be jumping on the next plane home anyway?
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported?
I don't think it is inhumane. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees always anticipated that refugees should return home if and when the danger from which they needed protection ceased to exist. Article 1(C)(5):
This Convention shall cease to apply to any [refugee] ...if:
...
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee ...who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;
Refugee status was always intended to be temporary - that's exactly why application for indefinite leave to remain is a separate step.
Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo - all examples of countries from which the UK accepted large numbers of refugees in the past and which are now generally safe. Syria is looking optimistic; it's not out the question that Ukraine could be stabilised soon (in the coming 3 years, say) and its government is not repressive. (Of course it is still possible that individuals could have an individual wel-founded fear of persecution even from "safe" countries). The principle that refugees should return home once it is safe to do so is not inhumane.
How high a priority this is, I don't know. I have no idea what the numbers involved are. Also, cancelling people's existing ILR (absent fraud etc) seems like a hopeless waste of time.
Look an immigrant!
I think it is more a case of "Look we agree with Tommy Robinson, immigrants are tearing our country apart and it is the government's job to unite the country. Please vote for us in next year's local elections".
Immigration is tearing the country apart, its been allowed to be a highly polarising issue. Should it be, no not really, but the beahiour of governments in the last 10 years including the current one not calling out the racists and populists has got us to this point. Current policy changes are too little too late. We've enjoyed the benefits of light touch immigration policies since the war. More effort should been made on integration as well as sellling the cultural and economic benefits of migrants.
So once that threat ceases to exist they'd surely be jumping on the next plane home anyway?
Integrate … but bugger off when we say so.
Plenty of people “go home” once it is safe to do so, but what about those that have made here “home”? When the government has told you they can deport you then they see fit, living under that threat for years at a time, no matter what life you have made here and no matter how you’ve contributed to the UK, is inhumane.
Immigration is tearing the country apart,
No immigrants are not responsible for tearing the country apart. If anyone is tearing the country apart it is the far-right.
The country is as "united" now as it's always been. Tommy Robinson was talking shite with his "unite the kingdom" demo, as is the current Labour Home Secretary.
Obviously there are some very serious problems concerning people risking their lives in dangerous leaky boats and the ridiculous slow pace of the asylum process but there is no need to back the bollocks that Stephen Lennon spouts
Immigration is tearing the country apart,
Actually, fear-mongers backed by the billionaire class are tearing the country apart.
Mostly because so long as mobs are trying to burn penniless brown people alive they don't have time to realise that they are poor because of the billionaires, not the penniless brown people.
Suella Braverman had a dream, and it seems like it's a dream Labour now shares, of seeing planes full of asylum seekers leaving the country.
I have a dream of seeing planes full of panicking billionaires leaving the country in fear for their lives. Hope there's a country willing to accept them as refugees.
Hope there's a country willing to accept them as refugees.
Dubai seems to be the haven of choice - funny how they’re happy to live under Sharia law there…
So once that threat ceases to exist they'd surely be jumping on the next plane home anyway?
Plenty of people “go home” once it is safe to do so...no matter what life you have made here and no matter how you’ve contributed to the UK
1) do plenty of refugees go home once it is safe to do so? I have no idea of the numbers. We could be talking about 100 people or 100,000.
There's 210,000 Ukrainian refugees in the UK, approximately. In 2027, many of them will be able to apply for ILR. That is a lot of people.
2) the second bit is not true. Refugees can always apply for other visas and/or ILR on other bases - family life, highly skilled, whatever. As I understand it, all that's being proposed is that ILR solely on the basis of refugee stats can no longer be applied for after 5, 6 or 10 years.
https://www.gov.uk/settlement-refugee-or-humanitarian-protection
Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo - all examples of countries from which the UK accepted large numbers of refugees in the past and which are now generally safe. Syria is looking optimistic; it's not out the question that Ukraine could be stabilised soon (in the coming 3 years, say) and its government is not repressive. (Of course it is still possible that individuals could have an individual wel-founded fear of persecution even from "safe" countries). The principle that refugees should return home once it is safe to do so is not inhumane.
How high a priority this is, I don't know. I have no idea what the numbers involved are. Also, cancelling people's existing ILR (absent fraud etc) seems like a hopeless waste of time.
What if the person has been here 10 years, got fell in love, got a job, made friends / whatever? Surely it's inhumane to deport them now. I have no issue with refugees staying, integrating into society, and paying their taxes.
Refugees can always apply for other visas and/or ILR on other bases - family life, highly skilled, whatever.
Hoop jumping. And the hoops keep getting smaller with successive governments setting more of the hoops on fire. This direction of travel needs arresting, or we are going somewhere ****ing dark. If Labour are happy to head down this road along with Reform and the Tories, I’m not going to applaud or make excuses for them.
.....
So once that threat ceases to exist they'd surely be jumping on the next plane home anyway?
Integrate … but bugger off when we say so.
Plenty of people “go home” once it is safe to do so, but what about those that have made here “home”? When the government has told you they can deport you then they see fit, living under that threat for years at a time, no matter what life you have made here and no matter how you’ve contributed to the UK, is inhumane.
I didn't say anything any integrating. They're here temporarily seeking refuge so once the threat is over they can return home. I don't think that's controversial or inhumane at all.
The fact we've offered them asylum in the first place and allowed them to stay for as long as the threat remains satisfies my moral compass.
If they really like the UK and want to stay then they can apply for other visas while they're here or whenever they like.
You didn’t. But “they don’t integrate” is the other half of this “send them home” nonsense, isn’t it. Let successful asylum seekers get on with their lives here, they shouldn’t have to live in stasis. Of course many will hope to return when the situation changes in the country they came from, but some will want to put all that behind them and live a good life here. A good life doesn’t including waiting for that tap at the door because the government has decided you can, and therefore should, leave.
“They can just apply for visas” ignores that they live here and visas are increasingly just for the rich and being made increasingly rare and hard to get.
Is this about making this a hostile country to deter asylum seekers from coming here? Or is it about eroding the rights of certain people who live here to make others who live here feel better about their own lives (and lend you your votes as a reward)?
I mentioned integration in the context of immigration is tearing the country apart. I meant the concept of immigration is tearing us apart. As Brucewee pointed out it been weaponised by people with agendas not necessarily with the best interests of Britain or the wider population at heart. My comment about integration was ot a dig at the immigrant communities, but because there are many areas where immigrants have (understandably) congregated they stand out. Anyone living in the north in the ex textile towns would see this, Burnley, Accrington, Nelson, Blackburn are very culturally and ethnically segregated. It's not intentional but it does create an them and us mindset in many of the community groups.
What if the person has been here 10 years, got fell in love, got a job, made friends / whatever?
Why is that any different from any other visa? They're all time-limited.
A spouse visa (for foreigners married to UK citizens and ppl with settled status, mostly) has to be renewed every 2 years and 9 months, for example, at a cost of £1400-2000 a go. A Skilled Worker visa lasts 5 years and costs £2-3000. Basically between the NHS surcharge and visa application fees it costs a grand a year for most foreigners to live in the UK.
Why is that any different from any other visa?
Why should people who have fled a country, had their whole lives upturned, been through the asylum system, made a new life here not have to live with the constant fear that the government could any day force them to abandon their lives, again… is that what you are asking? This is just a “treat ‘em mean” policy for successful asylum seekers. Make it known they are not welcome here. We all know why.
A link showing us just how tight, expensive and down right hostile visa requirements have been made in recent years is just emphasising my point about the direction of travel, and Labour pushing vulnerable people into this system is of no comfort. It isn’t making things farer for anyone, it is about being seen to be harsher on a group of people they think the UK public want to see being treated more harshly. Well not me, and I suspect I’m far from alone in that.
It isn’t making things farer for anyone, it is about being seen to be harsher on a group of people they think the UK public want to see being treated more harshly. Well not me, and I suspect I’m far from alone in that
I hope you're right but I'm not sure you are . I'm an immigrant, moved to New Zealand 3 years ago . My son was 4 when he got here and the idea that when he's 23 you could let someone like him whose grown up in a country, been educated, integrated and maybe contributing to society and then say thanks very much but off you go seems pretty cruel to me .
I think the biggest problem is as a country the UK seems unable to have a rational conversation about immigration. Asylum applications make up about 3 percent of immigration so if you feel immigration is too high Asylum seekers are pretty low on the list of priorities. Equally saying stop the boats should be a perfectly valid thing to say as no one should be crossing the channel in an inflatable dingy but I'm not sure people who say they want to stop the boats are interested in safe and legal routes as an alternative. In a world of social media , alternative facts and professional opinion media influencers I fear that's the case for most issues now .
Literally can't tell Labour MPs and Tory/Reform apart these days.
https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1989752448513167450?t=UWxMXWdBBYFFuQb7BG6WBw&s=19
Mike Tapped
"Everything I don't like is Communism"
Asylum applications make up about 3 percent of immigration
That's not true. It's much higher than that in the UK.
In 2024, it was 13-15% of immigration to the UK (depending on whether you count BN(O) Hong Kongers). 108,000 people total - roughly the population of the city of Gateshead.
In Jan-Jun 2025, it was 111,000 - so on track to double this year. Roughly the population of Reading, if so.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
The hand-wavey attitude of "ohh, it's just a statistical rounding error, it doesn't really matter" isn't going to cut it, practically or politically.
I'm with politecameraaction on this. Help people out as we are in a position to do so (even if we didn't have to) but when the reason they have had to flee has gone then they return to their country. If they don't want to, because maybe they didn't like it much anyway, then fair enough but they need to apply and we need to accept based on whether we need them here., i.e. are they filling a gap.
Getting 200,000 people a year that we don't actually need is not good.
"Island of strangers - the problem is, immigrants don't integrate"
"I know, let's make them wait 20 years for citizenship and send them home if we deem their native country to be safe in the meantime. That will help encourage them to integrate better!"
That 13% figure quoted above includes those whose applications are subsequently refused, BTW. It's not the number of new long-term residents.
That 13% figure quoted above includes those whose applications are subsequently refused, BTW. It's not the number of new long-term residents.
1) Yes, that's correct - @moonsaballoon referred to asylum applications.
2) they're not "long term residents" is a bit more questionable when:
a) it takes most applicants a year to get an initial decision - which is fair enough considering how complicated the factual and legal issues are, and the massive increase of workload that's been put on the system. These decisions are never going to happen overnight. Most applications (53%) are rejected at first instance.
b) of those who appeal the initial decision, it takes about another year to get a review.
c) most people whose asylum claims are rejected don't leave the UK afterwards. Only 48% of those people actually leave the UK.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
Literally can't tell Labour MPs and Tory/Reform apart these days.
https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1989752448513167450?t=UWxMXWdBBYFFuQb7BG6WBw&s=19
Mike Tapped
"Everything I don't like is Communism"
I am totally gobsmacked by that tweet. But I am not sure what I find more shocking, the supreme irony of someone accusing others of losing "all perspective of reality" calling the Green Party communist, or the fact that it was written by a "Labour" MP.
I had to check who Mike Tapped really was. That shite accusing anyone vaguely left-wing of being a communist and declaring "Deport, Deport, Deport," is pure Donald Trump.
How ****ed up is the Labour Party and British politics? And how the **** did Mike Tapped manage to get through the selection process and even more important become a Labour government minister?
The whole system seems set up purely to faciiltate rapatious firms to rinse the taxpayer for every penny we've got!
It's not like that in the engineering and construction sector. My firm works on huge infrastructure projects (HS2 etc) and there's always a massive debate about whether we should bid for them because we barely break even. Also we're at the mercy of idiotic political decisions. When Rishi Sunak cancelled the Euston HS2 terminus it cost our firm £60M in lost contracts, that resulted in our bonuses being wiped out that year (2k per employee) and hundreds of redundancies. Not all the public sector is a gravy train for firms owned by friends of the tories.
I am totally gobsmacked by that tweet.
Everyone wants to be Nigel Farage these days! 😳
https://twitter.com/RobertJenrick/status/1989396440939131338?s=20
I wonder who drank that pint for the Shadowy Secretary of State for Justice
Mike Tapped
The tapped bit is me messing. Just so you know it's Mike Tapp.
I'm sure it would be so much easier allround if Labour just went on a fixing programme. At least we'd be able to defend them.
"But the markets." - so what, what are they going to do?
What's amazing is look how shit things are by feeding the idea that the markets are all powerful. We've ended up with rubbish outcomes.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/great-fiscal-sleight-of-hand/
I am totally gobsmacked by that tweet.
Everyone wants to be Nigel Farage these days! 😳
The thing is that in an attempt to out-farage Nigel Farage Labour are becoming more extreme with their rhetoric than Farage. I can't really see Nigel Farage accusing Zack Polanski of being a communist.
Donald Trump yes but Nigel Farage tends to be a bit more sensible and restrained about things like that because he is aware of how ridiculous it sounds to a UK audience. Same with ranting "Deport, Deport, Deport".
Still I guess it is a reflection of the crisis facing the Labour Party and their growing desperation as it becomes increasingly likely that they might be reduced to being just another minor party after the next general election........Pasokification UK style!
Lesson I'm getting - Polanski is rattling them. They absolutely need pressure from the left and with Deborah Meaden (very much the Centrist diplomat) saying good thinks about ZP then he's reaching further than just the left.
Well yes, the latest opinion poll out this weekend put the Greens on 17% two points ahead of Labour on 15%. Even the Tories were ahead of Labour on 16% !
The thing is that people who are likely to vote Green generally aren't stupid enough to believe that the Greens are communist. So the obscure Labour government minister is just making himself look stupid for no good reason.
They absolutely need pressure from the left
Seems pressure from the left is pushing Labour further to the right though. They know they've lost the Polanski demographic of voter so their best hope is nicking back some of the Reform/Tory voters.
Seems pressure from the left is pushing Labour further to the right though. They know they've lost the Polanski demographic of voter so their best hope is nicking back some of the Reform/Tory voters.
So Reform, Labour, and the Tories end up trying to outdo each other for the approval of the 'machine gun the small boats from the white cliffs of Dover, Rule Britannia!' section of the population.
Not a bad result if the rest end up coalescing around the Greens. Obviously the Lib Dems will be the junior partner in the new government but at least we know they do as they're told and don't make a fuss.
Surely if a certain demographic of voters are convinced that the Greens pose a communist threat, as the Labour minister claims, then the obvious solution is to vote for Reform?
Those same gullible voters are likely to believe the Labour Party is also suspect. After all Donald Trump has previously claimed that the current Labour government is "far-left"
Stoking anti-communist sentiments, if successful, can only help the far-right.
Seems pressure from the left is pushing Labour further to the right though.
Dont think so.
Labour have been chasing the hard right vote ever since the election and the greens have only really started to gain momentum recently. I suspect this Denmark policy has been in the pipeline longer than the greens have been seen as a threat.
I think the biggest problem is as a country the UK seems unable to have a rational conversation about immigration. Asylum applications make up about 3 percent of immigration so if you feel immigration is too high Asylum seekers are pretty low on the list of priorities. Equally saying stop the boats should be a perfectly valid thing to say as no one should be crossing the channel in an inflatable dingy but I'm not sure people who say they want to stop the boats are interested in safe and legal routes as an alternative
If asylum seeker only account from 3% of immigration then presumably the other 97% are arriving legally which means there must be safe legal ways into the UK or 97% of those who arrived wouldnt have come that route.
I don’t understand why anyone who wants to see illegal immigration stopped is instantly branded far right as a way to shut them down. There are many people who want to see illegal immigration stopped who are not interested in most right wing ideas or policies. For example it’s perfectly rational to want illegal immigration stopped and wealth taxed properly. To want a properly funded NHS and a whole sale reform of the welfare system so it does what it was originally designed to do.
If asylum seeker only account from 3% of immigration then presumably the other 97% are arriving legally which means there must be safe legal ways into the UK or 97% of those who arrived wouldnt have come that route.
That's an incorrect presumption because:
1) asylum applicants are not per se illegal immigrants. It is legal to make an application for aslyum when you're already in the UK on a lawful basis, and it is legal to show up on the border, present yourself to authorities, and claim asylum even if you're arriving on a dinghy. 60-70% of asylum seekers don't arrive by small boat.
2) The argument is that there is no safe, legal route to directly seek asylum in the UK, which is correct for initial applicants but incorrect for their family members. It also glosses over the fact that although you can't apply directly to the UK from overseas, the UK resettles refugees that have applied via unhcr for asylum.
3) most illegal immigrants are not (failed) asylum seekers, they're overstayers - people that came lawfully and stayed longer than they were entitled to or otherwise breached the terms of their visa/entry. Probably a quarter of these people were born in the UK ie to illegal immigrant parents. But there's no reliable data...
https://jcwi.org.uk/resource/who-are-the-uks-undocumented-population/
I don’t understand why anyone who wants to see illegal immigration stopped is instantly branded far right as a way to shut them down
I dont understand why people keep claiming that. Since whilst there might be a few people who say that most people dont.
I think its one of those attempts to avoid having to discuss an issue by shutting it down by shouting about being accused of being far right. That or possibly not understanding that the accurate statement that the far right is prominent in the protests isnt saying that all people who protest are far right. Although personally if I was thinking of attending a rally and saw the far right only slightly hidden were involved in organising it I would give it a miss.
You say "illegal migration" so you are happy with the legal migration levels? See that 97 vs 3%?
How do you suggest dealing with asylum seekers since that will often involve some illegal action in terms of crossing borders etc. If you are being politically persecuted you might be able to see it coming and be able to get a tourist visa and then claim asylum once here but in most cases the persecution means you are going to have to leave the country illegally.
There are many people who want to see illegal immigration stopped who are not interested in most right wing ideas or policies.
Yeah me. Why wouldn't I want illegal immigration stopped? If it's illegal it should be stopped.
What bothers me is trying to stop refugees claiming asylum in the UK. The UK has a legal obligation to provide asylum for refugees under the United Nations Convention on Refugees.
What also bothers me is a Labour Prime Minister claiming that immigrants during the last Tory governments caused "incalculable damage" to the UK, because its bollocks. And he knows it is.
asylum applicants are not per se illegal immigrants. It is legal to make an application for aslyum when you're already in the UK on a lawful basis, and it is legal to show up on the border, present yourself to authorities, and claim asylum even if you're arriving on a dinghy. 60-70% of asylum seekers don't arrive by small boat.
So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally. If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers as defined by the Geneva Convention and that the vast majority are economic migrants who have no valid reason for just turning up. Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
I think thats it in a nutshell.
Overwhelming majority of immigration is for economic reasons whether legal or not. I have no problems with people wanting to do so, and if it's of benefit of that society it's win/win.
The problems of course is that some people, for various reasons, feel they can just demand it.
A problem exacerbating the issue is that for many years previously debate on the issue was shut down with name-calling of being racist etc.
The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers as defined by the Geneva Convention and that the vast majority are economic migrants who have no valid reason for just turning up.
Those very few people are correct as until this year the majority of asylum claims are successful and only now down to 48%. The fact that you think the majority of people think that the majority of asylum seekers are just making it is telling. Why do you think that?
What also bothers me is a Labour Prime Minister claiming that immigrants during the last Tory governments caused "incalculable damage" to the UK, because its bollocks. And he knows it is.
Lots argue that years of Tory promises to cut immigration - followed by record rises - created the very anger and disillusionment that allowed Nigel Farage and Reform UK to surge. The gap between Tory rhetoric and reality fuelled a sense of betrayal among Brexit-minded voters, giving Farage powerful ammunition to claim the government had lost control. By failing to deliver on their central pledge, the Torys inadvertently legitimised his narrative and handed him a ready-made constituency, enabling Reform’s ascent and causing what critics call “incalculable damage” to the UK’s political landscape.
So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally. If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
Out of curiosity what counts as legal for you?
If I use a tourist/student visa to be able to fly to the UK and then claim asylum once that visa is about to expire do you consider that legal?
Whilst there are some "safe and legal" routes they tend to be country and group specific eg the Afghanistan case.
The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers as defined by the Geneva Convention and that the vast majority are economic migrants who have no valid reason for just turning up.
So some people believe a lie which is propagated by politicians and right-wing newspaper columnists with a specific agenda,. deal with the lie, why just go along with it?
Most people who arrive in the UK in small boats are granted asylum because they comply with the legal requirements, those who don't are deported. What's the problem?
The gap between Tory rhetoric and reality fuelled a sense of betrayal among Brexit-minded voters
Which is a problem for two reasons.
Firstly that non European migration would increase was actually one of the offerings from the brexiteers with the "save our curry houses" etc.
Secondly leaving the EU has removed, for example, the ability to check whether someone has been refused asylum elsewhere in Europe so the UK becomes a plan b option.
Actually a third reason given how many of the brexiteer top brass are former tories its a bit weird sticking with them under a new name.
Lots argue that years of Tory promises to cut immigration - followed by record rises - created the very anger and disillusionment that allowed Nigel Farage and Reform UK to surge.
You believe that support for the Tories collapsed under Liz Truss's disastrous premiership because of immigration?
Under Boris Johnson's premiership Labour's lead was something like 2-3% , that changed overnight when Liz Truss became PM and the Tories never really recovered.
18 months ago Labour won its second biggest majority in history, if there was an election tomorrow they could come 4th.
As Bill Clinton used to say, "it's the economy, stupid'
So some people believe a lie which is propagated by politicians and right-wing newspaper columnists with a specific agenda,. deal with the lie, why just go along with it?
It's not a lie. There was a program on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago where the presenter went into an 'asylum' hotel and interviewed a family there. The father openly admitted that many migrants were just looking for a better life. And of course, if the immigrant family manages to time their crossing with the wife's childbirth then it's a win-win situation.
It's not a lie. There was a program on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago where the presenter went into an 'asylum' hotel and interviewed a family there. The father openly admitted that many migrants were just looking for a better life.
I am sorry but I would rather believe the legal process in the UK which grants refugee status to the majority of those who arrive in a small boat, than what some geezer in a hotel room somewhere tells a presenter on a Radio 4 programme. It's a no-brainer.
The claim that, quote, "the vast majority are economic migrants" is a lie.
Btw I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that refugees claiming asylum shouldn't be "looking for a better life". I am sure that it conforms with the definition of a refugee.
Of these, 61,706 were granted asylum or some other protection status, and 35,125 were refused.
So according to the UK government (not some geezer in a hotel somewhere) almost two thirds of small boat arrivals are granted asylum or some other protection status, I call that the "the vast majority".
How about educating people with the truth instead of going along with a lie? 💡
Edit: To give some context to the figure of 61,706, which covers 7 years, the population of the UK is currently 69.3 million,. The idea that 61,706 people could have had a significantly negative effect on the UK's economy (the 6th largest in the world) is ludicrous
The claim that, quote, "the vast majority are economic migrants" is a lie.
Btw I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that refugees claiming asylum shouldn't be "looking for a better life". I am sure that it conforms with the definition of a refugee.
You have no way of knowing that unless you’ve gone an actually asked them.
Honestly, I don’t care as it’s not relevant to the issue. What relevant is the 140k who have arrived by boat since 2020. Whether it’s genuine escape from persecution or economic opportunity it’s still a problem to be solved.
ignoring it or accusing people of being far right isn’t going to solve the problem of a rate of immigration that outstrips the countries ability to absorb the additional population.
You have no way of knowing that unless you’ve gone an actually asked them.
Maybe those processing their claims ask them......."as a refugee are you looking for a better life or would you prefer if things were even more shite for you?"
[1] So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally.
[2] If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
[3] The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers ... and that the vast majority are economic migrants
[4] Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
There's a lot of stuff to address here so apologies for the numbering.
[1] it is not illegal to arrive by small boat and claim asylum. It is not safe, either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-it-illegal-to-cross-the-channel-on-a-small-boat
[2] People who claim asylum once they are here on another visa weren't issued visas and / or admitted on the basis of allowing them to claim asylum once they are here. For example, a student that claims asylum once they are here enjoyed a safe and legal route to study in the UK, not to claim asylum in the UK.
[3] People might believe that, but it's not true. 98% of small boat arrivals are asylum seekers. The majority (68%) of those asylum seekers have their claims approved as refugees.
[4] i imagine it would be a pretty miserable experience if we did, @chrismac, and I wouldn't fancy it much tbh.
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Then we wouldn't be able to work, and we would have €6.80 (£6) a day to live on - for food, clothing, non-prescription medicine, everything. I don't think we would enjoy that either, @chrismac.
And plus we'd be separated from our families or perhaps even worse trying to get our kids some kind of education while being shuffled from pillar to post with practically no money. I wouldn't like that much.
It sounds pretty shit to me tbh.
https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/#housing
Mike Tapped
The tapped bit is me messing. Just so you know it's Mike Tapp.
I had to Google Mike Tapp to make sure he wasn't a parody account like Sir Michael Take. What an absolute disgrace.
Of these, 61,706 were granted asylum or some other protection status, and 35,125 were refused.
So according to the UK government (not some geezer in a hotel somewhere) almost two thirds of small boat arrivals are granted asylum or some other protection status, I call that the "the vast majority".
How about educating people with the truth instead of going along with a lie? 💡
Edit: To give some context to the figure of 61,706, which covers 7 years, the population of the UK is currently 69.3 million,. The idea that 61,706 people could have had a significantly negative effect on the UK's economy (the 6th largest in the world) is ludicrous
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals. So 39%, the rest have either been refused or have withdrawn their applications.
[1] So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally.
[2] If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
[3] The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers ... and that the vast majority are economic migrants
[4] Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
There's a lot of stuff to address here so apologies for the numbering.
[1] it is not illegal to arrive by small boat and claim asylum. It is not safe, either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-it-illegal-to-cross-the-channel-on-a-small-boat
[2] People who claim asylum once they are here on another visa weren't issued visas and / or admitted on the basis of allowing them to claim asylum once they are here. For example, a student that claims asylum once they are here enjoyed a safe and legal route to study in the UK, not to claim asylum in the UK.
[3] People might believe that, but it's not true. 98% of small boat arrivals are asylum seekers. The majority (68%) of those asylum seekers have their claims approved as refugees.
[4] i imagine it would be a pretty miserable experience if we did, @chrismac, and I wouldn't fancy it much tbh.
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Then we wouldn't be able to work, and we would have €6.80 (£6) a day to live on - for food, clothing, non-prescription medicine, everything. I don't think we would enjoy that either, @chrismac.
And plus we'd be separated from our families or perhaps even worse trying to get our kids some kind of education while being shuffled from pillar to post with practically no money. I wouldn't like that much.
It sounds pretty shit to me tbh.
https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/#housing
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Im sure it is. Its not supposed to be nice. If you are a genuine asylum seeker then the fact you are now safe, have accommodation, access to food and some healthcare is a big win. If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
Its not supposed to be nice.
Why on earth shouldn't it be nice? Whether your application is approved or whether you are going to be deported there is no reason why asylum seeker accommodation should be "pretty ****ing grim".
The real scandal is that these claims should take so long to process. Whether the accommodation is nice or not wouldn't matter so much if it didn't take so long. Ten years ago about 90% were decided within 6 months now the average is 12 months.
Apart from anything else what a waste of money. Let people entitled to stay start working and looking after themselves as quickly as possible and deport those that are going to be deported as quickly as possible.
The "problem" is the system, not asylum seekers.
It’s not supposed to be nice.
Is it wrong to hope another forum user ends up living a miserable life? Perhaps they already are…
Anyway, this summarises how I’ve been thinking about all this today…
Nadia Whittome MP
Labour MP for Nottingham East
[ source ]
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals.
So, 35,000 out of 159,000 have their application refused.
Chris you are Robert Jenrick and I claim my fiver
Paintings were considered too welcoming at Kent centre for lone children arriving in UK
Bleedin lone children escaping horrendous conditions expect to come here in the UK and be welcomed with a friendly almost homelike environment!
It's supposed to be grim!
Its not supposed to be nice.
The real scandal is that these claims should take so long to process. Whether the accommodation is nice or not wouldn't matter so much if it didn't take so long. Ten years ago about 90% were decided within 6 months now the average is 12 months.
1) Pretty disappointing that @chrismac 's one observation on being shown he's talked a load of nonsense is "I don't care if it's not nice".
2) I suspect part of the reason why decisions were taken more quickly in the past was that there wasn't real review happening. I have been involved in one phase of a fairly straightforward asylum application and it really takes time to prepare and consider fairly. Getting the punters to explain their story, getting the underlying evidence (especially if docs have to be got from problematic countries), writing it up, submitting it, having it reviewed properly. It all takes time.
However, if you just bodge it or make it all up (like some "immigration advisors" tell their clients to do) or if you don't bother reviewing it (like some civil servants can't do), then it goes a lot quicker...
So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally. If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
See that bit where it says asylum seekers are not here illegally, did you miss that? One can not be here unlawfully if claiming asylum no matter how one arrives.
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals.
So, 35,000 out of 159,000 have their application refused.
no 159000 application less 62,000 accepted = 97,000 not accepted
I agree that the process for evaluating applications needs to be much quicker so those who are accepted can get on with their lives and the rest deported
The worst thing about all this is that human weasel Chris Philp is all over the airwaves. He really is a loathsome little turd. He’s like an even shitter Gavin Williamson
Doesn’t mean accepted either. It means not granted
Indeed. So why are you including it on the “rejected” side of the ledger, rather than relying on cases that have actually been adjudicated?
If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
So tell me how you decide who gets the nice accommodation as sounds like you only want those without a valid case to have not very nice accommodation to stay in until their case is processed. You see the problem don't you?
If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
If you deliberately make life shit for people then if they have the opportunity to go elsewhere they will. That means that the doctors, engineers, scientists, police, nurses, teachers will eventually get pissed off and go, and those that have no easily exported skills will stay. Those that have somewhere nice to go will go and those that come from somewhere really poor/unpleasant/dangerous will stay because however bad life is made for them in the UK it's better than where they come from. All this means you provoke a brain drain amongst those with choice and still end up with those who have no real choice because they have the least to offer.
Give people real opportunities, things to look forward to and hope, and they'll contribute far more than if they are stuck somewhere with no rights, hassle, expenses and continuous harrassment.
Like Brexit it's shooting oneself in the foot, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Create a hostile environment and it's the people who can who'll go.
They're celebrating 50 000 being kicked out. Of that 50 000 I'd wager many would have filled jobs that need doing if they'd been given a chance.
But if it keeps the gammony xenophobic types happy... .
Read this:
The worst thing about all this is that human weasel Chris Philp is all over the airwaves. He really is a loathsome little turd. He’s like an even shitter Gavin Williamson
I actually complained to the BBC about a Chris Philp interview where he was allowed to make wildly inaccurately claims about disability benefits. Obviously it came to nothing but it did demonstrate what an odious little shit Philp is. It's amazing that when you think the Tories have produced their lowest moral being, they can still go lower...
Well some Labour MPs get it
“I didn’t fight an election as a Labour MP to bundle distressed children on to deportation flights,” one MP said. Another MP in a Green-facing seat said they were facing an enormous backlash on social media. “It’s all terrible. Straight out of the far-right playbook.
But the great news for Sir Keir Starmer is :
The Conservatives have said they could support the government to pass the tough new laws in the event of a major Labour rebellion.
Although it doesn't explain how a Labour Prime Minister, with the second largest Labour majority in history, might end up needing support from the most right-wing Tory Party in living memory.
No wait, yes it does, he's turned out to be a right-wing racist himself !
And also from the above link :
"The government has already been forced to clarify that it did not intend to proactively seize jewellery from refugees."
So that is good news then because presumably it means that their gold teeth will be safe.
It really is a sobering thought that we are talking about a "Labour" government.