I think that’s the last thing we need, and hope you were being sarcastic!
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
You know what I meant
It’s often said that you can never appease the Faragist far right. I also start to wonder whether the far left have any interest in real solutions to this problem rather than point scoring. If politics is the art of the possible, then advocating allowing a substantial increase in uninvited immigration (and dismissing distinctions between refugees and economic migrants) in a post-Brexit vote, worst economic downturn since records began scenario is akin to advocating perpetual motion or alchemy.
No worries mate. Me too.
I agree with the European Court of Human Rights. Inhuman living conditions are unsafe, yes.
It is not that difficult to comprehend. But as usual your lack of understanding and even moreso your lack of effort to understand, speaks volumes about you.
@Don't Kill Bill
These figures hardly look like an open door policy so they.
The UK had "fewer asylum applications in 2019 (49,000) than Germany (165,600), France (129,000) and Spain (118,000). In fact, the vast majority of the world’s refugees – 84% – are located in developing nations. Only 16% reside in wealthy countries that are former colonial powers or involved in recent foreign interventions."
So the conversation shouldn't be about a so called "invasion" of 4000 asylum seekers with Farage's Bile on social media then the BBC and SKY reporters following suit by stalking boats on prime time news. It is a handy distraction for the government but a dangerous precedent. Akin to 1930s Europe.
Finally, some xenophobia we can agree on? Or not...At least we can agree its all the fault of the French.
I've tagged you in my post below with some stats.
It's a really difficult debate, isn't it? I'm not taking the piss. It really is a tough discussion to have. On one hand you have the empathetic argument - "we should do everything we can to help our fellow human beings". And on the other you have the realist (maybe not the right word but...) argument - "we don't have enough money/assets to help everyone".
It becomes a difficult debate because it becomes so emotionally charged, and I don't envy the folk who have to make these decisions. HOWEVER. I can't look at this government and believe them when THEY say it's a "difficult decision". Like all of their "difficult decisions" it's actually quite easy for them. They don't give a feck about anyone and they've shown it time and again.
If this discussion was occuring in a united country that doesn't have growing pockets of bigotted thick skulled plebeians blindly ingesting the vapid rhetoric shite of a vain, unscrupulous, ruling class on one side, and on the other side salad munching Greenpeace twats who would rather shout "shut up" and sniff their own farts instead of having an actual discussion, we might get somewhere. But we already know how this ends. Some people get fecked over, some people protest and some rejoice. And then six months later everyone gets fecked over.
My point is; I'm glad when we can have proper discussions and light hearted banter on this forum that doesn't just turn into massive shit flinging contests. It makes a change from the usual pointlessness of Twitter.
It becomes a difficult debate because it becomes so emotionally charged, and I don't envy the folk who have to make these decisions. HOWEVER. I can't look at this government and believe them when THEY say it's a "difficult decision". Like all of their "difficult decisions" it's actually quite easy for them. They don't give a feck about anyone and they've shown it time and again.
If this discussion was occuring in a united country that doesn't have growing pockets of bigotted thick skulled plebeians blindly ingesting the vapid rhetoric shite of a vain, unscrupulous, ruling class on one side, and on the other side salad munching Greenpeace twats who would rather shout "shut up" and sniff their own farts instead of having an actual discussion, we might get somewhere. But we already know how this ends. Some people get fecked over, some people protest and some rejoice. And then six months later everyone gets fecked over.
My point is; I'm glad when we can have proper discussions and light hearted banter on this forum that doesn't just turn into massive shit flinging contests. It makes a change from the usual pointlessness of Twitter.
Genuine question here - Has any political topic(With real material outcomes at stake) gone on to be resolved by debating ?
It's seems to me anyway that there are specific material conditions at certain points of history which give rises to different political and social classes/groups who by force push their causes into being.
Can't remember the last time anything in Britain was settle with a debate.
It's seems to me anyway that there are specific material conditions at certain points of history which give rises to different political and social classes/groups who by force push their causes into being.
Can't remember the last time anything in Britain was settle with a debate.
Problem is things are rarely debated in a rational and reasoned way, it’s just statement of your view and then just attack the other perspective. It’s become tiresome, so people really have no interest, and so their existing view just ends up being reinforced.
Don't know the numbers, but is what he is saying even true for most of the European countries besides Germany? Also, there are heavy industry sectors, e.g. aerospace, automotive, etc., that are at least as equally impacted that some of those other countries rely own; not to mention the countries that rely on tourism.
But hasn't this always been the case ? I'm not sure this is a modern development(Although maybe social media makes it feel more intense ?).
More than happy for someone to bring up examples as I'm struggling myself to think of any political issues which was debated and then resulted in some agreed change.
Perhaps, and maybe it’s just the theatre of the whole process, and given we have more exposure these days it’s more apparent. Just seems utterly pointless most of the time.
Yep agree with you here.
Who said it should? Did I not literally just say that shouldn’t be the kind of language that people use?
Really good point, I know I can be guilty of this and I consider myself to be fairly open minded but I think everyone has views engrained in them and challenging them naturally makes you feel very uncomfortable.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A reminder that so much of conservative politics is based off "owning the libs".
God I really despise her, as if lawyers applying the current laws is "exploiting" anything.
Criticising judicial activism can be roughly translated to 'we want carte blanche to do what we want'.
.Yeah she has the Ian Ducan Smith vibes, unlike other Tories who are clearly in it for themselves(Boris for example)there's a deep rooted cruelty to Patel. Reminds me of Tidal Swinton Thatcher character.
have you read the article?
Its behind a paywall so the only bit I could see is they want to change the rules to make it that you have to state your reasons for applying for asylum at the time of making the application? - which frankly I'm surprised isnt the case already ... there may well be other more controversial measures listed in the article but Ive not read it - have you? - could you / somebody give a run down of the measures?
Sounds fine, we'll let them chose the time and the place, as long as it's 1815 and Waterloo.
Nope as you can see I only replied to her criticising lawyers for applying rules that exist. Didn't comment on the changes she wanted to make.
Nice try on the 'gotcha' though.
im not sure belgium will be so keen on letting us use waterloo - perhaps we just go old school and have a 2 leg encounter at hastings and agincourt?
on a more serious note i wonder if next summer we might have people crossing the other way to get into europe post brexit?
It is the case already, but some people have multiple reasons to claim asylum (e.g - fleeing war, persecution due to sexuality/race etc.) and they may get denied on the grounds they initially apply on (due to inability to produce evidence, typically) but accepted on other grounds.
I can't get past the paywall either, but the proposed change appears to be that they have to choose one criteria and if they fail they have no right to re-apply on the basis on another. Obviously this will lead to a situation where people who qualify for asylum can get turned down because of poor/absent legal advice at the outset, or because of harsh decision-making (our asylum system has been notoriously harsh since it was tightened substantially in the early 2000s).
will need to see the proposal hence I wondered if anybody has looked behind the paywall - my understanding was that they wanted to reduce the time so people would be able to apply on miltiple grounds concurrently but not reapply on new grounds repeatedly? (right of appeal still exists as well I assume?)
is legal aid provided in asylum cases? - genuinely not sure but given the categories and that a several hour interview is done to establish the facts (with interpreters provided) it genuinely does not seem too onerous for somebody to know the reasons they do not feel it is safe to return to their own country
Last edited:
Have managed to find a source elsewhere, not sure on the legalities of sharing the text of paywalled articles here so I won't. But, according to The Times, the change is that they have to declare all their grounds to claim asylum at the outset, after which they can't add new ones.
The main issue (aside from the danger of poor legal advice mentioned above) is that when you put forward an initial reason for claiming asylum, you are expected to provide evidence straightaway or your case will be dismissed out of hand and you'll be deported. If you can't provide any evidence, you don't reach the formal decision making stage and there is no right of appeal.
The reason you get a lot of people being granted asylum on the basis of a secondary criteria is because people in this situation often don't have the documentation on hand to evidence their strongest criteria from the outset. The system (by design since reforms in the 2000s designed to reduce the number of successful applications regardless of their merit) does not give applicants time to gather evidence. In order to stave off deportation long enough to gather the required evidence, applicants will initially apply on the grounds of a weaker criteria they can partially evidence in the hopes that the processing time will buy them time to gather the evidence they need to demonstrate they fulfill another criteria (itself a gargantuan effort as they are often asking for documentation to support their case from a regime who wants them dead).
Undoubtedly, these 'time-buying' claims cost the taxpayer money, but it's a situation forced upon applicants and their legal council by the unreasonable expectation the current process puts upon them. If they didn't do it thousands of applicants who qualify for asylum would be deported to suffer or die. Patel's plan is basically to remove this tactic of buying time, forcing applicants to provide any and all evidence to support their claim almost immediately on arrival and thereby allowing the government to deport people before they have a chance to gather the evidence they need to build a case.
In terms of legal aid, applicants can apply but there's no guarantee of success. In these situations the bill is usually footed by charities with finite resources or the work done pro-bono by lawyers who have a finite capacity to work for free.
It certainly seems the system needs changing - not certain the proposed changes will be the answer but in essence making the proper claim rather than a flimsy one at outset seems logical - would clearly need some clarity about evidence requied and how to obtain it being provided at the same time as well
I am assuming most people crossing from france have made themselves aware of the procedure and evidence required in the UK and are weighing that up in the decision as to if its sensible to get in a dinghy with their family prior to crossing?
how does our system / document requirements compare to france / italy / greece for example
Frankly, the system is a disgrace and not for the reasons you cite. It isn't designed to assess whether people are eligible for asylum, it's designed to reject as many applicants as possible regardless of their eligibility and make it difficult for those who make it through. This move is a further step in that direction.
On your second paragraph, the asylum system is considered complex by the standards of lawyers and professional caseworkers who receive rigorous training in the relevant legislation. Certainly, it's far more complex than the nationality legislation many Home Office caseworkers deal with, which is itself a lot more complex than the guidelines employed by decision-makers in HMRC or DWP. From the questions you've posed in here it seems you've had difficulty establishing even superficial details of the process independently, despite access to the internet, considerable free time and fluency in the English language. Assuming that people who have left their homeland under threat of death or violence and whose current hardship has left them considering a dangerous crossing will have access to the resources required to research and prepare a thorough legal case in a foreign language is either naïve in the extreme or wilfully ignorant. The nature of asylum cases is that people will often not have access to the resources they need to launch a case until they get here, and even then it can be a struggle.
I'm afraid I don't know about systems in other countries.
It’s probably worth creating a separate thread for this, given where the narrative seems to be heading in the media.
with all that to contend with it really is strange that people would leave a safe country in France by putting their kids in a dinghy to cross the worlds busiest shipping lane then - unless they would be eligable for asylum here but not there - though my gut feel is that is probably unlikley to be the case as im sure france does not deport people to be persecuted?
Why what’s the narrative in the media? I rarely watch/ read the news at the moment.
Ultimately, if your opinion is that absolutely no cross-channel asylum seekers have legitimate cases then there's no point in wasting everyone's time and goodwill by pretending to be interested in the process.
not at all - just that if they dont feel they have that france seems a lot safer than a dinghy for kids
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There is nothing strange for people having a sense of empathy.
They also believe real estate prices have decreased from 2007 to 2019: really?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
BBC news had a journalist in a boat alongside a migrant boat, interviewing them as they came across. It was just bizarre to watch.
I think it’s going to become a massive topic of conversation if the weather stays good enough for more crossings.