UK Politics

LOL, I knew you'd find a flaw in my great plan...bugger off..

 

Only one nation has successfully "stopped the boats" so probably the easiest, evidence based way is to follow what they did.

It's impossible here though because people don't like change, the idea that all these people are women and children fleeing war is deep routed, the ECHR is problematic and nobody has the balls to behave in a way that would act as a deterrent.

Of course, other things could work but things such as negotiating with other countries, etc, etc and paying the French more just aren't going to affect illegal gangs any more than it's stopped drug smuggling over the last 50 years.

 

They should have used the £300m wasted on the Rwanda scheme to buy up all the rubber boats in Europe. Simple

 

It may have cost £300m in the short run but it has saved many more millions in the long run. Sometimes you have to stop throwing good money after bad. The idea was always just a flimsy piece of window dressing that was designed to appeal to hostile public opinion, rather than anything that had a chance of working.

Despite the extortionate ongoing costs, the Rwanda scheme was only ever going to fly 1-2% of the asylum seekers to Rwanda. The idea that people who are prepared to spend every penny they own and risk their lives (and those of their kids) crossing the channel in rubber dinghies would be deterred by a one in fifty chance of being flown to Rwanda is for the birds.

I don’t know whether Starmer’s enhanced Border Security Force will have much success in tackling the gangs and stopping the crossings at source. But at least it’s a practical attempt to deal with the problem, unlike the crackpot Rwanda idea that cost mega bucks but delivered sweet FA.

 

Serious answer...that's what our army/navy/defence organisations are for. By any means necessary (without endangering lives obviously) these cretins should be stopped and/or towed back to the beaches they came from, rather than paying the disgraceful frogs a fortune just to let them come over anyway. Our armed forces are in place to protect our country against the enemy, which the majority of boaties most definitely are

 

I certainly agree that it was a crackpot idea by Rishi to start with. But at the same time I really cannot see Starmer and co appeasing the situation with a solution, particularly when you have got braindead fruit loops like Lammy (Foreign Secretary), Diane Abbott (Mother of the house), John Healey (Defence) and Sadiq Khan (London Mayor) at the forefront of his staff. God help us

 

FFS Offie..... It's something totally different. It's not a Border Security Force it's a Border Security Command. " completely different things...I expect

 

Well, firstly, Sadiq Khan is not even part of the government, let alone at the forefront of Starmer’s staff. Diane Abbot may be the longest serving MP but she’s now very much a backbencher, well outside of the the centre left faction that now dominates the parliamentary LP, so her influence on policy or implementation will be close to zero.
You may not like David Lammy, but he’s very far from being brain dead - he’s actually a very clever man. And what on earth John Healey has ever done to be called a fruit loop is beyond me; you’d have to explain that one.

The fact is that there are no simple solutions to the asylum/small boats issue. Like many other western democracies we are now struggling with the consequences of actions made by numerous governments of our forefathers for 300 years. Many of those actions made us the most powerful nation on earth at one time but are now biting us on the bum. If a solution was simple it would have been done by now.

 

Ok, ok.

 

and how do we smash the traffickers when they are not in the UK?

 

Exactly. Serious lack of common sense already being shown by Yvette Cooper with bold statements like that

 

Well as I said that should be what our armed forces should be doing - defending our shores first and foremost

Also as @Rogered Tart rightly said earlier - stop these scum being entitled to benefits. That is surely a relatively quick and simple solution to stopping a few of them at least!

 

We must be the only country that never breaks any rules......

 

Leaving the ECHR would have massive knock on consequences that go way beyond the immigration situation.
The Convention and the European Court of Human Rights are now so enmeshed into our law in numerous areas that withdrawing would throw our legal system into chaos. There would be a landslide of legal appeals that would swamp our already understaffed and failing court system.
I used to be up to my eyes in mental health and mental capacity law when I was a local authority trainer/uni lecturer in those fields and the Convention/ECtHR were all over it like a rash. And there’ll be numerous other areas of public law that are the same.
Most people are only aware of the headline political stuff they hear about and have no idea of the full consequences of withdrawing from the EHCR and ECtHR. TBH most people don’t even understand the difference between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

 

I’ve met John Healey a number of times through work, comes across as a decent bloke to me. I don’t really have an allegiance to any party but he seemed one of the more sensible politicians.