Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 Just now, MattP said: He is free to correct me, but I thought it was extremely clear Stokes was saying we should make the welfare system undesirable to discourage people, not the actual country. No one has still answered a quite pertinent question of why a lot of these people are so desperate to get to the UK having already traveled through multiple safe countries they could have claimed asylum in. Although I have ask, why would the moral bankruptcy fall on us and not Emmanuel Macron and France if this did happen? Even Strokes himself admitted he hadn't thought it through; essentially, I think we were in agreement on the ends - just not the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 1 minute ago, Buce said: This report challenges that as a myth: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/07/war-and-violence-drive-majority-of-people-fleeing-to-europe-by-sea-not-economics That report is nothing to do with Calais, it's one from Greece and Italy and given the sources that are involved ie "refugee council" I'm sure you understand people being dubious at best about its impartiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 5 minutes ago, Buce said: Even Strokes himself admitted he hadn't thought it through; essentially, I think we were in agreement on the ends - just not the means. It lacked detail because I'm not sure what asylum seekers are entitled to here, compared with Europe. It's pretty clear that a large proportion of them think that the uk is much more desirable than anywhere else in Europe, or why else would they travel through so many safe countries that would help them and then wait in squalor for an indefinite amount of time to get here. My suggestion was too find than incentive and remove it, making another generous country the focal point. It's still a fairly solid logic, without the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 9 hours ago, Buce said: So, just to be clear: your answer to curbing unwanted migration is to make the UK less desirable to live in than the EU? 9 hours ago, Strokes said: It a less desirable place to live if you are a migrant yes, for example, less things bestowed to you upon arrival that they currently are. If France won't help us process people, we have to protect ourselves. 9 hours ago, Buce said: What would you deny them that they currently receive? 9 hours ago, Strokes said: Anything, everything. I don't know the details of what they have in entitlements, I'm guessing it's equal to or better than what's on offer in France otherwise they wouldn't wait months/years in Calais to cross over. 9 hours ago, Buce said: Food? Water? Medical aid? Leave them to drown? That's not the compassionate Strokes that I know. 9 hours ago, Strokes said: We could let Lilly Allen hand out water and ryvitas but that's it. No I said nothing extreme in my post earlier. Like I said I don't know what the entitlements are now, so I can't say exactly what. You can lessen the desire to be here, by making it less attractive than being processed in the EU. I hope we don't have to make any changes to our policy with genuine migrants, I don't take issue with helping. The situation we are talking about would bring on enormous pressure and would have to be dealt with somehow. 9 hours ago, Buce said: This has become a circular discussion, mate. It seems that you know what you want (ie migrants not wanting to come here) but you don't have a clue how to achieve it without us becoming the kind of country our fathers/grandfathers fought against 70-odd years ago. 8 hours ago, Strokes said: No, I don't want uncontrollable migration, I have no problem with migrants coming here that are needed or a fair proportion of asylum seekers. What was suggested was a hypothetical situation where France could legally let waves of migration comes here but we would be powerless to stop. My solution to that, is rather than allow this to happen, we should make it less desirable for them to want to be here. I admit I lack details in this. However, im not sure it would ever be needed, as I'm sure France can't just ship over this amount of migrants and say that's your problem, without breaching some sort of international laws themselves. We could always close the ferrys and the tunnel, if we've no trade to send over, it really isn't needed anymore. Seems to me you don't really know what you're saying, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magictv Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 11 hours ago, James. said: No offence but as per my post I was looking for a link to a respectable news article or research piece describing the positives of Brexit from someone of power, influence or expertise as opposed to just what MattP off Foxestalk thinks will happen. 18 hours ago, James. said: You seem to think that everyone's views are fixed. Surely recent history would suggest that a lot can change in just a few months. And it's not just the London media is it. It's businesses, trade associations, academics - it's a relentless stream of news and views all going the same way. I would genuinely like to read something positive about Brexit that was written recently and is based on sound judgement. Does anyone have anything? 18 hours ago, James. said: You seem to think that everyone's views are fixed. Surely recent history would suggest that a lot can change in just a few months. And it's not just the London media is it. It's businesses, trade associations, academics - it's a relentless stream of news and views all going the same way. I would genuinely like to read something positive about Brexit that was written recently and is based on sound judgement. Does anyone have anything? 11 hours ago, James. said: No offence but as per my post I was looking for a link to a respectable news article or research piece describing the positives of Brexit from someone of power, influence or expertise as opposed to just what MattP off Foxestalk thinks will happen. Just to bring this back up... I'd be interested to read the same, if anyone has anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Strokes said: We can easily make the country less desirable for migrants than France without the ties of the European Union is my point. Without the need for anything particularly extreme. If brexit goes the way you guys seem to think that might be a natural conclusion for them anyway. This was the post I put before that exchange, which is why I assumed it was understood we were talking on a monetary basis. 8 minutes ago, Buce said: Seems to me you don't really know what you're saying, mate. It's lacking precise detail but it seems to be an unwarranted distraction, it's like me asking you for the make and model of the boat these migrants are crossing on, and dismissing the idea until you tell me. Perhaps the discussion is best left until we know more about the details of the brexit negotiations, because it's all hypothetical until then isn't it. Edited 8 July 2017 by Strokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 4 minutes ago, Magictv said: Just to bring this back up... I'd be interested to read the same, if anyone has anything? Apologies, I'm away this weekend bit tag me Monday and I'll post some things. If you read the Brexit supporting press you'll find things all the time. Just this morning in The Times it reports again that a trade deal with the USA should be done fairly quickly. Unfortunately though we don't really know the consequences until we see the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: This was the post I put before that exchange, which is why I assumed it was understood we were talking on a monetary basis. It's lacking precise detail but it seems to be an unwarranted distraction, it's like me asking you for the make and model of the boat these migrants are crossing on, and dismissing the idea until you tell me. Perhaps the discussion is best left until we know more about the details of the brexit negotiations, because it's all hypothetical until then isn't it. Sure. But the same can be said of anything Brexit related; if you don't want a discussion, that's fine, but a discussion is all it was - I have no beef with you, you know that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 Judging by the failings of Universal Credit and some of the failings of our benefits system witnessed first hand it is more than reasonable to assume our benefits system can easily be exploited, if you are a financial refugee it makes sense to find a country with easier access to its benefits system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 6 minutes ago, katieakita said: Judging by the failings of Universal Credit and some of the failings of our benefits system witnessed first hand it is more than reasonable to assume our benefits system can easily be exploited, if you are a financial refugee it makes sense to find a country with easier access to its benefits system It's absolutely incredible we talk about thsee things like they are totally normal. People supposedly fleeing war and persecution and we somehow tolerate a pick and choose situation walking through Europe based on what benefits they can get. What a change from previous eras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 32 minutes ago, Buce said: Sure. But the same can be said of anything Brexit related; if you don't want a discussion, that's fine, but a discussion is all it was - I have no beef with you, you know that. Likewise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: It's absolutely incredible we talk about thsee things like they are totally normal. People supposedly fleeing war and persecution and we somehow tolerate a pick and choose situation walking through Europe based on what benefits they can get. What a change from previous eras. I'm not sure it's that simple - you, of all people, should recognise that there are many reasons why this country might be an attractive place to live in comparison to some other countries. I absolutely concur, though, that they should apply for asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 11 hours ago, Strokes said: Also buce, under the terms of the human rights laws we are not able to deport asylum seekers back to their home nations due to fears of persecution I believe. This is an obvious reason why Europe is desirable, we are free to remove this right if things become an issue. Which would make us less desirable than France for instance. We are allowed to deport people - asylum seekers who do not get approved for refugee status can be deported. People who apply for asylum do so on the grounds that if they were to be sent home, their human rights would be threatened. Many are homosexual or have been victims of war and other feudal skirmishes and if sent back would likely be executed. I wouldn't want this to happen to anybody - I've spent years working with young asylum seekers and the stuff many of them have been through is unimaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 13 minutes ago, MattP said: It's absolutely incredible we talk about thsee things like they are totally normal. People supposedly fleeing war and persecution and we somehow tolerate a pick and choose situation walking through Europe based on what benefits they can get. What a change from previous eras. Supposedly? So people a risking their lives in boat crossings to claim benefits? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: Supposedly? So people a risking their lives in boat crossings to claim benefits? Wow. As from the links I've posted, widely recognised now most of these people are not fleeing war. Most are economic migrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, MattP said: As from the links I've posted, widely recognised now most of these people are not fleeing war. Most are economic migrants. 'Many of the occupants of the “Jungle” in Calais are “probably not refugees” but migrants simply trying to get to the UK, Britain’s most senior immigration judge has said. Mr Justice McCloskey said there was “no real basis” for many of the estimated 6,000 people in the makeshift camp to remain there. 'Many are probably not refugees in any general sense or any sense entitled to recognition' Mr Justice McCloskey He said they were likely to be international migrants who plan to claim refugee status here because of “perceived advantages” in the UK rather than France.' A judge's subjective opinion does not qualify as widely recognised. Neither does the opinion of one columnist (A Guardian columnist - any other time you would dismiss it as left-wing propaganda). Yet you glibly do dismiss the report I posted because it came from the Refugee Council. Seems to me you're just cherry-picking 'facts' that suit your agenda. Edited 8 July 2017 by Buce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 (edited) One of the main problems I have when discussing the economic migrant/asylum seeker issue is it's essentially all guess work. Everyone can quote sources and reports on who these people are and their intention, but nobody actually knows so making a judgement is pretty hard. Syria is a really odd situation. Before the shit hit the fan there, it was a pretty affluent place. There were more in terms of rising middle class than falling into poverty so the perception that people are heading here for benefits alone isn't one that particularly rings true. If anything, whilst they are asylum seekers, their skill sets could push them into the economic migrant category as there are many skilled workers in healthcare, science, manufacturing and engineering which were all growth industries there but obviously there lives have disappeared and turned to shit. The bottom line for me is, the UK is a fvcking amazing country. I absolutely love it and can well understand why people are drawn to it rather than countries like Germany, France, Spain or Italy. The people here are just a different class. Yes there's some arseholes but generally, we have the best country in the world. Everyone knows it so everyone wants to live here. Any state benefit they might get is a secondary consideration in my opinion. Firstly people just want to be a part of our country. Edited 8 July 2017 by Realist Guy In The Room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 2 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: One of the main problems I have when discussing the economic migrant/asylum seeker issue is it's essentially all guess work. Everyone can quote sources and reports on who these people are and their intention, but nobody actually knows so making a judgement is pretty hard. Syria is a really odd situation. Before the shit hit the fan there, it was a pretty affluent place. There were more in terms of rising middle class than falling into poverty so the perception that people are heading here for benefits alone isn't one that particularly rings true. If anything, whilst they are asylum seekers, their skill sets could push them into the economic migrant category as there are many skilled workers in healthcare, science, manufacturing and engineering which were all growth industries there but obviously there lives have disappeared and turned to shit. The bottom line for me is, the UK is a fvcking amazing country. I absolutely love it and can well understand why people are drawn to it rather than countries like Germany, France, Spain or Italy. The people here are just a different class. Yes there's some arseholes but generally, we have the best country in the world. Everyone knows it so everyone wants to live here. Any state benefit they might get is a secondary consideration in my opinion. Firstly people just want to be a part of our country. You might be right but it's nothing like as pleasant to live in as it used to be - and not as safe either with both factors getting continually worse despite so many facts being covered up or understated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 29 minutes ago, Thracian said: You might be right but it's nothing like as pleasant to live in as it used to be - and not as safe either with both factors getting continually worse despite so many facts being covered up or understated. I wonder how you measure 'pleasance' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 30 minutes ago, Thracian said: and not as safe either What leads you to suggest that? Crime rates tend to fall on a yearly basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: I wonder how you measure 'pleasance' Depends on who is applying the term. Certain people would regard an absence of 'incomers' as pleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 1 hour ago, Charl91 said: What leads you to suggest that? Crime rates tend to fall on a yearly basis. You're presumably talking about recorded crime rates. But by admission the police haven't got the resources any longer to cope with all the crimes they might deal with. Indeed there's a continual outcry for more police to cope with the increasing burden. So I don't see much point in referring to official figures anymore than the finding of a lorry load of immigrants provides statistics that allow for all the lorry loads that aren't found. Grenfell Towers provides a pointer to the nonsense of fofficial figures. There doesn't even appear to be a list of people who are/were supposed to be living there let alone the ones who were also living there through sub-lets or even illegally and anonymously - to the point where the authorities have offered an amnesty to get at some semblance of the real number of fire victims. If were numbers are not available at Grenfell what about all the other high rise blocks in Britain. Where are the lists of residents - and all the unofficials - in those cases. No, regarding safety you only have to look at the serious crimes being committed on a daily basis in the Leicester Mercury to realise there is more happening in a week than used to happen in a long time and I know for a fact that countless known or suspected crimes are not able tor liable to be proved. Look at the security cameras needed to supposedly keep us safe now.. They're on every major road and a lot more besides. That level of monitoring was never needed and they're are added to constantly. Every computer has to be protected and how many of those accounts get infiltrated? How many people have been affected by people trying to con them with a scam? If you truly don't believe our society is a less safe you're kidding yourself. And, of course, society does exactly that because no-one in authority wants to admit something is out of control and they don't have the will or the right to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Thracian said: You're presumably talking about recorded crime rates. But by admission the police haven't got the resources any longer to cope with all the crimes they might deal with. Indeed there's a continual outcry for more police to cope with the increasing burden. So I don't see much point in referring to official figures anymore than the finding of a lorry load of immigrants provides statistics that allow for all the lorry loads that aren't found. Grenfell Towers provides a pointer to the nonsense of fofficial figures. There doesn't even appear to be a list of people who are/were supposed to be living there let alone the ones who were also living there through sub-lets or even illegally and anonymously - to the point where the authorities have offered an amnesty to get at some semblance of the real number of fire victims. If were numbers are not available at Grenfell what about all the other high rise blocks in Britain. Where are the lists of residents - and all the unofficials - in those cases. No, regarding safety you only have to look at the serious crimes being committed on a daily basis in the Leicester Mercury to realise there is more happening in a week than used to happen in a long time and I know for a fact that countless known or suspected crimes are not able tor liable to be proved. Look at the security cameras needed to supposedly keep us safe now.. They're on every major road and a lot more besides. That level of monitoring was never needed and they're are added to constantly. Every computer has to be protected and how many of those accounts get infiltrated? How many people have been affected by people trying to con them with a scam? If you truly don't believe our society is a less safe you're kidding yourself. And, of course, society does exactly that because no-one in authority wants to admit something is out of control and they don't have the will or the right to deal with it. Ahh right. So it all comes down to a dash of 'rose-tinted-nostalgia-glasses', with an added measure of 'confirmation bias'. Fair enough then, I suppose conjecture and anecdotal evidence trumps real facts and statistics. (Also, I presume that the police still 'record' the crime, even if they don't necessarily have the resources to deal with it. I don't think lack of resources prevents them from doing that). Edited 8 July 2017 by Charl91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Floyd Posted 8 July 2017 Share Posted 8 July 2017 2 hours ago, Charl91 said: What leads you to suggest that? Crime rates tend to fall on a yearly basis. 'Crime' is vague. I'd suggest that violent crime is most relevant to safety, and that is on the rise in every pillar of the UK. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/violent-crime-rise-every-corner-country-figures-suggest/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts