Westminster Politics

The UK in the next few years

Daily Mail Island, a reality TV show where several normal people are deposited on an island and not allowed access to any media other than the strongly right-wing, deeply conservative Daily Mail newspaper, leading to them becoming progressively more irrational and brutal as the series progresses — for example, tying teenage lovers together with sacks on their heads and beating them,[5] or sealing a teenager caught masturbating into a coffin filled with broken glass and dog faeces and throwing it over a cliff [6] and their language devolving into rhetorical questions and sarcastic snorts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVGoHome
Click to expand...
 
sun_tzu said:
What are france doing that makes things so dangerous then?
Click to expand...
If i was to hazard a guess. Something like this...

More than a thousand refugees suffer 'inhumane' living conditions in Calais and Dunkirk, warns UN

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ng-jungle-migrant-crisis-latest-a8288516.html

Or this...

Calais clamps down as asylum seekers say: 'They just beat us'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/18/migrants-in-calais-suffering-from-random-police-raids
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If i was to hazard a guess. Something like this...

More than a thousand refugees suffer 'inhumane' living conditions in Calais and Dunkirk, warns UN

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ng-jungle-migrant-crisis-latest-a8288516.html
Click to expand...
Yet if they claimed asylum in France they wouldn't be living in those conditions as France houses people away from calais/ Dunkirk.

Pretty sure I'd do that rather than stick my kid in a dinghy and try to cross the worlds busiest shipping lane
 
For goodness sake this has been happening for years and years, its not an emergency especially with everything going on in the world right now.

How about we focus on getting out of the recession that we are now in?
 
Smores said:
You finally stopped pretending that you're not a Tory then?
Click to expand...

Why do you need to be a Tory to question the narrative that 'escaping' from France to the UK is the same as fleeing a warzone? The UK sure as feck should be admitting more refugees, but I'm still not hearing a compelling argument for why exactly parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel (or indeed live in shitty dangerous refugee camps at Calais) when they're already in a prosperous western Democracy where they can claim asylum.
 
Kentonio said:
Why do you need to be a Tory to question the narrative that 'escaping' from France to the UK is the same as fleeing a warzone? The UK sure as feck should be admitting more refugees, but I'm still not hearing a compelling argument for why exactly parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel (or indeed live in shitty dangerous refugee camps at Calais) when they're already in a prosperous western Democracy where they can claim asylum.
Click to expand...
exactly - not everything is blue or red (or more specifically for many on here are you red enough)
I have some sympathy for the french government in this as well as I doubt many are landing on the southern french coast and walking through France but its incumbent on them to tackle the people trafficking routes through their territory... its a shame the EU response was so lacking to the refugee crisis as its for sure something that would be better tackled with a more unified approach - but people living in camps and risking their kids life to flee France certainly isnt the same as people leaving a warzone
 


This is a great way of spinning that we have a zombie economy built on low paid service work.
 
Kentonio said:
Why do you need to be a Tory to question the narrative that 'escaping' from France to the UK is the same as fleeing a warzone? The UK sure as feck should be admitting more refugees, but I'm still not hearing a compelling argument for why exactly parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel (or indeed live in shitty dangerous refugee camps at Calais) when they're already in a prosperous western Democracy where they can claim asylum.
Click to expand...

Do you? I didn't say that in the slightest as far as i can tell.

I honestly couldn't give a single shit why this small minority of asylum seekers don't stay in France, there's much more important concerns and you'd have to have good justification to try it. Why parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel is a very good question but the answer to that is surely because the UK makes it necessary. Yet that question is only asked with the intent to attack the character of asylum seekers isn't it?
 
sun_tzu said:
Yet if they claimed asylum in France they wouldn't be living in those conditions as France houses people away from calais/ Dunkirk.

Pretty sure I'd do that rather than stick my kid in a dinghy and try to cross the worlds busiest shipping lane
Click to expand...
Maybe as a starting point try to think what would drive you to that act of desperation and work back from there.

Might be a more reasonable starting point than, these people are nothing like me, I would never choose to do that etc.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Maybe as a starting point try to think what would drive you to that act of desperation and work back from there.

Might be a more reasonable starting point than, these people are nothing like me, I would never choose to do that etc.
Click to expand...
I just dont think the situation in syria is comparable to the current situation in france... do you?
 
Smores said:
Do you? I didn't say that in the slightest as far as i can tell.

I honestly couldn't give a single shit why this small minority of asylum seekers don't stay in France, there's much more important concerns and you'd have to have good justification to try it. Why parents should be risking their kids lives to cross the channel is a very good question but the answer to that is surely because the UK makes it necessary. Yet that question is only asked with the intent to attack the character of asylum seekers isn't it?
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.

It seems people are quite easily influenced to believe far right propaganda. The fact that 4000 people (in a country of 66 million people) have come in on dinghys is annoying some UK citizens more than the UKs high corona death toll of 46000 or dodgy contracts issued to Tory donors worth £100s of millions of tax payers money.

Some people need to get their fecking priorities in order.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Exactly my point.

It seems people are quite easily influenced to believe far right propaganda. The fact that 4000 people (in a country of 70 million) have come in on dinghys is annoying some UK citizens more than the UKs high corona death toll or dodgy contracts issued to Tory donors worth 100s of millions of tax payers money.
Click to expand...

This is the optimistic view.

The pessimistic take is that our media propagates these narratives because that's what people want to see/hear.

It's a bit of both.
 
sun_tzu said:
I just dont think the situation in syria is comparable to the current situation in france... do you?
Click to expand...

The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK
 
sun_tzu said:
I just dont think the situation in syria is comparable to the current situation in france... do you?
Click to expand...

Until / unless the UK allows people to apply for asylum without arriving on our shores, this amounts to saying we shouldn't take any refugees. They will inevitably pass through a safe country to get here.
 
Untied said:
This is the optimistic view.

The pessimistic take is that our media propagates these narratives because that's what people want to see/hear.

It's a bit of both.
Click to expand...
Oh its definitely both.

It also suits the government to point the finger at asylum seekers to blame them for government failings. Distracts from their inept handling of coronavirus, the economy (we have the biggest shrink of all G7 countries) and the biggest recession for decades.
 
Ecstatic said:
The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK
Click to expand...
Right so going back to the original point
Somebody said people only put their kids on boats when the water is safer than the land

I think we both agree that is not the case here then and fleeing a war zone by boat on a dangerous route is not the same thing as leaving france for the uk?

esmufc07 said:
Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ecstatic said:
The question is rather: why do they want to live in the UK instead France? The answer is the UK is more viewed as a land of opportunities: the asylym seekers have often more connection there, a better understanding of English than French, etc. They planned to join the UK before reaching France.

Immigrants from French-speaking African countries stay in France while some coming from the Middle-East or English-speaking would tend to prefer the UK
Click to expand...

In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.
 
Untied said:
Until / unless the UK allows people to apply for asylum without arriving on our shores, this amounts to saying we shouldn't take any refugees. They will inevitably pass through a safe country to get here.
Click to expand...
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone

esmufc07 said:
Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone
Click to expand...

Under the Geneva Convention asylum seekers are not obligated to seek asylum in the first "safe" nation they arrive in, they have the choice.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Under the Geneva Convention asylum seekers are not obligated to seek asylum in the first "safe" nation they arrive in, they have the choice.
Click to expand...
yes and they are choosing to leave this "safe" country and risk their childrens wellbeing - which is exactly the point i was making against the statement


esmufc07 said:
Heartbreaking. Like the poet Warson Shire said, no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land. The attitudes to these human beings is awful. Was only a few months ago the very same people were arguing all lives matter.
Click to expand...

so you agree with me they are making a choice in leaving a safe country that they feel is worth endangering their childs life
 
Kentonio said:
In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.
Click to expand...

To leave one country is one thing, and choose a new country is another thing.

If they are involved in a formal process in order to become legal immigrants, then they will have to meet the requirements defined by authorities, and communicate on the former conditions of life (oppression or not) requiring an investigation as part of the process.

Alternatively, we can play with words and have a broad and subjective definition of the term "oppression", and say all of them are refugees fleeing what they perceive as political, social or economical oppression.

I would assume some left a country with a target in mind, the UK: they are ready to take any risks, especially when we know some of them borrowed a lot of money to pay human smugglers...

Fluctuation0161 said:
Oh its definitely both.

It also suits the government to point the finger at asylum seekers to blame them for government failings. Distracts from their inept handling of coronavirus, the economy (we have the biggest shrink of all G7 countries) and the biggest recession for decades.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Distraction in the sense this is not a new issue, but a permanent issue.
 
Last edited:
Clearly people crossing the channel in a blow up boat is a problem.

There are other problems that we have as well as a country, BREXIT, Recession and a global pandemic. That doesn’t mean we can’t address it.

It’s really not black and white to say if you think people arriving on boats you are a right wing, uncaring Tory.

It’s clear as day, that this is a concern, and needs to be addressed at source. As far as I can see, the majority of this is essentially human trafficking, and these migrants are paying to get on the boat. That’s not right, that’s not to say asylum should not be granted, but we shouldn’t have boats of people in the sea, so let’s try and look at the reasons behind this, rather than burying your head in the sand and saying “we have bigger issues”.
 
The easiest and safest answer would be for the UK government to organise boats for these people to get across the channel. So why not just do that?
 
Sweet Square said:


Click to expand...

Wait for the Talking Heads to come on TV to explain why this is false. And then when it's proven to be right how it isn't a big deal. And then when it's proven to be a big deal how it's the best we could've hoped for. Then Boris will say something funny and we'll all forget about it.
 
Shamwow said:
The easiest and safest answer would be for the UK government to organise boats for these people to get across the channel. So why not just do that?
Click to expand...
Because it would clearly be politically untenable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.