Brexit

I didn't think you liked breaking international law?

Excluding a refugee based purely on race or nationality contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention.

 

If you decide to get flustered over a correct assertion then theres nothing much I can do about that.

This argument between myself and Aaron has been going on for a lot longer than the few pages you decided to step into. My point, if it helps you sleep better, is that forging a fantasy based on what you want to be correct vs what is real is what I call mentally ill. In this case the boats coming over here en masse the year we left the EU as being caused by brexit.

Please take away your over exaggerated outrage its not exactly high brow debating to spin it round on me rather than argue the point. At least @Aaron Baker understood my point and responded to that rather than debase the point with this faux outrage.

 

Ok.
[Done - Mod]

I bet the mods delete this a lot quicker than your post.

 

To be fair, I see where he's coming from. Most current younger people have far more liberal views and the evidence suggests that they are maintaining them later in life. There's already clear evidence that as older mostly Brexit-voting people have died since 2016 they've mostly been replaced in the electorate by young remainers, so that support for Brexit is now a minority view.
Younger people are struggling with job insecurity, falling living standards and the difficulty of affording first homes unless they have a bank of mum & dad who can help them. Not to mention the impacts of climate change.
Us baby boomers have been very historically lucky. We've had no wars to fight, enjoyed relative job security, decent pensions, free higher education, excellent health care and many have benefited greatly from rising property values. It's easy to be socially conservative and blase about inequality when most of us have been personally relatively comfortable. But the under 40s are facing a very different scenario and it's unlikely that they'll simply accept continuation of the status quo when the older generation dies and they become the electoral majority.

 

See my post to bailiff bridge. I didnt think you would resort to the flacid thinking that plagues those on the right.

Stop appeasing them, they ruined your kids chances in life, cost you money and made this country less powerful and a fecking laughing stock. All the values you espouse are no longer typically British values, you have these too thank for that. Stop appeasing them. Its the namby pamby approach that gets laughed at. Instead if brexit has caused some misery then shout about that and dont stop. They dont like it and find time to silence any criticism when one of them gets insulted. Straight from the right wing play book. You dont beat right wing thinking by holding out an olive branch, play them at their own game, be nasty, cause offense and watch them all of a sudden play the victim. At that point you win because their tough luck attitude suddenly vanishes into thin air.

 

Oh no my feelings.

 

Somebody’s tired.

 

Can i borrow your dummy?

 

I think the key word here is 'refugee'. It must be possible to find a way of excluding people on the basis that they simply don't meet the definition of a refugee, because they come from a country where there is nothing to seek refuge from.

We would laugh at anyone trying to claim asylum from Greece or Croatia, so why should we accept applications from citizens of Albania, which is a safe European country? Those people are not refugees, even if they (and the gangs that transport them) say they are, so the legislation shouldn't apply to them.

I don't think the EU, or anyone else, would give a toss about us breaking international law if we said we won't accept any asylum applications from Albania, regardless of the letter of the law. Whereas they are opposed to a blanket ban because it clearly discriminates against genuine asylum seekers fleeing genuine persecution.

 

Sorry, but that's bollocks. I'm happy to call out nasty views. But dishing out personal insults like calling people mentally ill
a) makes you look foolish and intolerant
b) creates sympathy for people who don't deserve it and
c) proves that you know absolutely sweet FA about mental health issues. Your definition of 'mental illness' is beyond laughable.

 

If it was that easy do you not think every country with this issue would already have done it.

The EU wouldn't but the courts would and the appeals would therefore be accepted.

The definition of a refugee is purposefully wide and set in stone by the same convention.

"Refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin for reasons of feared persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order and, as a result, require international protection"

People from Albania who know what to say fit this description and are having their applications and appeals accepted. Feared persecution and generalised violence are a ridiculously difficult to defend against.

 

Nothing fair about it for me, I find his comments very distasteful to a fellow poster and don't accept his replies to other posters who have called him out on it just a shame the mods have not intervened.
Of course some older people who vote to leave will have died Covid saw to that in many cases, but what's got to do with anything the vote at the time was won by the leave vote, are you suggesting because X amount of leave voter were the older generation and have since died off we should have another vote.
Yes my two daughter have there own homes through their own graft with a little helped from the bank of mum and dad, that's the way we were brought up, to give our kids a better start in life than we had, and they are doing the same for there children my grandson and granddaughter, your above points were available to us because of the graft of yours/my parents and their parents before them, I'm reactively comfortable and financially secure through my own graft.
Lets hope the young people you mention get off their backside and vote rather than bellyache as many have done when a decision they don't like goes against them.

 

OK, so if I paid a criminal gang to take me to Germany, showed up at their equivalent of the Home Office and tried to claim asylum on the basis that I'd been trafficked, how far do you think I would get with that? Do you seriously believe that they would house me in a refugee facility and put me through their asylum system, replete with court hearing and appeal? Course they wouldn't. They'd tell me to bugger off back to Britain and if I refused they'd very quickly deport me, with a minimum of ceremony.
So why do we accept anyone from Albania as meeting the definition of a refugee, wide as it is, when they clearly come from a safe European country with no particular 'generalised violence' beyond that which exists in every country on earth?

 

I think they actually would ridiculously enough but I'm not an expert.

But your hypothetical German situation is one thing that I don't know.

What I do know is that Albanians are being considered as legally hitting the definition of refugee. We know this because their claims are being accepted so whether we like it or not they have to be treated as such.

Which proves how stupid the rules are.

 

No, I'm not suggesting that we have another vote. I merely cited it as an example of how those under 40 are generally more liberal than older voters of our generation and older.
If you read my post above you'll see that I don't like his habit of slinging insults at others. But I still think he's got a point. To paraphrase MacMillan, we are the generation that never had it so good.
I don't know about you but I didn't have to rely on the generosity of my parents, because the state gave me excellent healthcare, a free education to university level and housing was affordable for people on an average wage/salary. None of that is true for young people today.

 

Or how stupid we are for accepting them within the definition of refugee. According to the BBC article I posted earlier in the thread, most asylum applications by Albanians are being thrown out by the courts, when they eventually get there. I still believe it must be possible to avoid putting them through the system and simply deporting them as soon as we identify them as coming from Albania - a safe European country.

 

We can't decide which bits of the convention to accept or not, we've signed up to it and I keep saying the courts use it for their decisions.

Oh and it's not that they're being rejected from that article. It's just that the obviously spurious ones have been sorted but all the others haven't been resolved yet. Even the article says 53% of claims by Albanians are accepted.

Why do you still believe that despite everything Ive said about the refugee convention that rules it? You can't discriminate on nationality and the you have to prove they don't meet the criteria to reject it.

In terms of your German example by the way. Turkey is considered a safe Country - we go on holiday there for example - but 25,000 Turks claimed asylum in German so being from a safe country once again doesn't disqualify a person from the system.

 

In which case we need to throw resources at improving the processing system. If we have to put these Albanians through the system then we need to do it much quicker. Of course that's highly unlikely to happen under this government because they are into cutting civil servants and the court system, not properly resourcing it.
But, more importantly, we need to work much more effectively with the Europeans to tackle the gangs. To be fair to Sunak, he does at last appear to have started to try dealing with the Europeans like a grown up, as opposed to the foot-stamping children's approach of his predecessors. But the Brexit schism has created a legacy of distrust on both sides that cannot but hamper those efforts.
Putting blanket bans in place is still both illegal and morally wrong.

 

But putting an illegal blanket ban on Albanians is right?

I agree but let's not also forget that the people representing these people are likely to want to drag the process out as much as possible too. There is no benefit to them in getting a quick no rather than a slow maybe and the information needed for a rejection is time consuming.

But yes, more efficency would be helpful as I would say for most things.