Brexit

So you complete agree with me that this new proposal is a pure fantasy and not worth the paper it is written on. The biggest clue was in the admission that the home secretary said it was against the law.

I know they can't return people to France, I have pointed that out as a major reason these plans are complete bobbins.

It seems however if you tell people what they want to hear even if you can't deliver it then it passes as policy these days.

The reason they are attacking Gary Linekar is because they want to divert attention for the bobbins of a bill they have put together.

 

Did you not listen to Yvette Cooper's response to the bill? She told you all you need to know and aimed at going after the people traffickers. I know the news has been filled with crap from Lee Anderson and co playing to the lowest common denominator to try get people to look through the short comings of the actual bill, which is why they have engaged Gary Linekar too.

The Bill is unlawful, they can't send people back to France, Rwanda hasn't seen 1 person go there and won't accept more than 200 but yeah, Labour.....

 

Linekar is an irrelevant, knobhead nobody and spouts his crap only for attention ....

 

So having border security on the French side and a migrant processing office in Calais twp ideas off the top of my head appear to be able to achieve more than the bobbins the home secretary has so far come up with.

 

If the Government were serious, they would be working internationally to get a proper new agreement in place with France and Europe, including return agreements, properly controlled and managed legal routes such as family reunion, and reform of resettlement. Instead, this Bill makes that harder, unilaterally choosing to decide no asylum cases at all, but expecting every other country to carry on.

If the Government were serious, they would be working with Labour on our plan for a major new cross-border policing unit to go after the criminal gangs. Instead, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said yesterday that we should not go after the gangs because they have existed for “thousands of years”. That is the disgraceful Tory attitude that has let the gangs off of the hook and let them take hold. One smuggler told Sky News yesterday that three quarters of the smugglers live in Britain, but barely any of them are being prosecuted and the Government still have not found the hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels who have been picked up by criminal gangs.

The Government could be setting out a serious plan today. We would work with them on it, and so would everyone across the country. Instead, it is just more chaos. The Government say “no ifs, no buts”, but we all know that they will spend the next year if-ing and but-ing and looking for someone else to blame when it all goes wrong. Enough is enough. We cannot afford any more of this—slogans and not solutions, government by gimmick, ramping up the rhetoric on refugees and picking fights simply to have someone else to blame when things go wrong. This Bill is not a solution. It is a con that risks making the chaos worse. Britain deserves better than this chaos. Britain is better than this.


That was the response to the plan, not that you will see it because the government have been more concerned with Gary Linekar's tweets.

 

It not a matter of agreeing with you people are not stupid they see the current situation and many are not happy with it, so I don't think its unreasonable to ask the Next Prime Minister in waiting what his party are proposing o do with regards the problem we are seeing unfold before our eyes.
It isn't going away, like it or not Labour will have to come up with some plans, let's hope because its a divisive topic they don't class themselves as "neutral" as Corbyn did when challenged on his view with regards Brexit, grow some balls and tell the Red wall voters who voted Tory just how you would deal with the present situation instead of voting against everything the Tories propose its a UK problem not any particular parties problem.

I'm not in the least interested in Linekers opinion, unfortunately because he is a television presenter his opinion seems to count more than others if you believe the media.

 

Now there's a fine example to use, this the women who's constituents voted for Brexit by a large majority then she voted every proposal put forward by Theresa May down, fine example of democracy.
We are already giving France millions for the French authorities to use to stop trafficking, that's going well, and as I posted Macron has openly said France will not take these economic migrants back, I'd say to most people he's made it more than clear its not his problem any more once they get into the boats.

 

As I replied in two parts to your message you will see in part 2 that I listed what Labour proposed which included return agreements something that the current government doesn't have, but something we did have prior to leaving the EU.

The truth of the matter is, the Tories can't put forward their record in government as a reason for re-election because it is completely dire. So what they do is they put forward a totally unworkable bill that even their home secretary confirms is unlawful knowing it will fail, but then come out with bilge to suggest they are being tough on the boats and it's everyone else who is the problem when they could vote through whatever they wanted in parlliment due to their current majority.

As for you next comment regarding Yvette Cooper voting against Theresa May's bill, you might want to look at Boris Johnson's record on that

 

Genuine asylum seekers have already come in their tens of thousands, as i've pointed out, from the likes of Ukraine (war with Russia), Afghanistan (Taliban takeover) etc. Whom else are you referring to that we should be taking in? We can't have everyone, it simply isn't a tiny island's problem to help relocate everyone from everywhere. There's literally no room and our services are already under immense pressure.

 

What Boris voted for or against isn't relevant to my original comment with regards Coopers constituents referendum vote, he voted against Mays deal as he thought it was a poor deal as we are now seeing.
Just listening to the news with regards Sunaks meeting with Macron where according to the media Macron has once again stated the migrants fleeing what is a safe country where they could claim asylum instead of a life threatening boat crossing over the English Channel, these people in many cases are not asylum seekers and the situation should be based on this, just why is the UK such a prize worth risking your life for when many have traveled through several EU countries to get to the UK.

 

There are refugees from all sorts of conflicts in Africa and the middle east. People like Mo Farah, who would be immediately deported under Braverman's proposals. We are not having 'everyone' - we take far fewer genuine asylum seekers than most other comparable wealthy countries. And that includes Ukrainians fleeing from the war that your friend Putin started.
Our services are already under immense pressure because of twelve years of Tory cuts and economic mismanagement. The numbers of genuine refugees/asylum seekers arriving here is a drop in the ocean by comparison. What we need to do is improve the systems that the Tories have devastated, so that we can weed out genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants promptly and deport those who aren't genuine, instead of having all arrivals waiting around in the system for years as at present, costing us billions. That's where government energies should be going, not into blanket bans that defy international law and penalise genuine asylum seekers.

 

So are you saying that the countries that are nearest to the war zones etc should have to take all the refugees/asylum seekers just because they happen to be nearest? I doubt you'd take that view if you were living in Turkey, Greece or Italy.

 

So Cooper votes again May's deal she is letting here constituents down. Boris does the same thing and that isn't relevant. OK.

I think you are being taking in with this gutter level politics. Stop the Boats, nice slogan but the bill does nothing of the sort, will costs the taxpayer millions when it is kicked out of court and deemed unlawful and like I have said over and over and over, it's just a policy to make the masses think something is being done, when like the Rwanda deal last year it is just not going to work.

The fact it has you pointing the finger at Labour and other people saying Labour are blocking it just shows you that it is party political ploy. The Tories can turn up monday and pass this bill, they have a massive majority it won't be blocked by anyone. When it is passed and confirmed it is unlawful the lefty lawyers soundbite will start to kick in, however you just can't pass something which is unlawful then blame the law.

IT'S A GIMMICK POLICY, and by throwing mud at Linekar they are filling the news bulletins with an us v them filler so the substance behind this failed bill isn't looked at.

 

I see this has been announced.

The UK is to help fund:

A new detention centre in France so people can be “removed from the French coast”
Deployment of ‘hundreds of extra French law enforcement officers’ with a “new, highly trained, permanent French mobile policing unit dedicated to tackling small boats”
Enhanced technology to patrol beaches, meaning drones, aircraft, surveillance technology
And the payments from the UK will be:

141 million euros in 2023-24
191 million euros in 2024-25
209 million euros in 2025-26
The aim to increase the interception of people trying to cross the Channel, and “reduce the number of crossings”.


Lets not forget that we spent £120m to deport people to Rwanda and not one person has been sent.
We paid France £55m last year and are already paying them £63m this year for absolutely no benefit as numbers have skyrocketed.

France don't care if people get in boats, when they do it's not their problem so throwing more money at the same thing really is just desperation.

 

Spot on. They are trailing badly in the polls. So they are doing what Tories always do in such circumstances - blaming foreigners and stirring up race hatred to deflect from their own failings. Lowest common denominator politics. As you say, none of it will will be effective, but the damage it causes is awful.

They know perfectly well that it doesn't stand a chance of making any real difference to the numbers arriving and also that it is illegal. but they don't care, because it allows them to keep stoking the culture war fires for as long as possible. Anyone who opposes it - Labour, lawyers, the courts, the EU etc etc - gets bad-mothed as 'soft' or 'anti-British' when all they've done is speak the obvious truth. It's totally cynical and sickening.

 

Now it's time for questions from journalists - starting with BBC Political Editor Chris Mason who asks both leaders if they can ever see a deal where migrants to the UK could ever be returned to France.

Sunak accepts it is a shared challenge with the UK, France and Europe.

"Our partnership is very strong," he says and adds that going forward the two will continue coopearting.

Macron talks about the priority being dismantlingg criminal networks and groups and says Sunak's plan is "the ambition" that is needed.


So thats a NO then. So sending them back over to France has been shot down already.

 

I'm not saying that at all, dont try and interptit what you think as what I'm posting, the meaning of asylum is
"the protection granted by a state to someone who has left their home country as a political refugee"
are you saying those countries you mention above are not safe sanctuaries for those claiming asylum, many who leave their home country hope they will be able to return hence they stay in a country close to the home land.
Why would someone fleeing persecution want to travel thousands of miles through several EU countries who can offer them protection ie asylum, only to cross the English Channel to claim asylum in the UK.

 

I want to know where we will be able to seek asylum when the ruskies start coming over on their dinghies ... ?

 

We might just as well fly a white flag ...

 

What you on about the constituents of Uxbridge and South Ruislip were pro-Brexit and had a 57.2 majority, so when Boris voted against Mays deal he was voting as his constituents wanted, where as Coopers constituent's had 69.3 majority to leave and she totally disregarded their opinion.

I'm being taking in by nothing stop making what you think rather than what I'm posting, I originally asked what proposals are the Labour party putting forward with regard tackling this present situation that wont be getting better as the weather changes, do we keep allowing these people to claim asylum without any proof they are from where they say they've come from, in many cases they have no documentation to prove their sorties are true, its been more or less acknowledge by most the Albanian situation is nothing to do with persecution but all about getting to the UK.
Once again you bring Lineker into the debate his opinion is just that his opinion most couldn't care less apart from those like yourself, forget Lineker he's just a very well paid ex pro footballer who uses his status and a mouth piece tp try and come across as knowing better than others what a shocking comparison to make with regards germany in the 30s to the present day UK.