General News

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

This is very vague as ever. What is the "closer relationship"? You're either in the SM and CU or out of it. This government is committed to hard Brexit which means economic growth continues to get battered, and we can't be as tight on non-EU immigration as we might like as European workers don't come here anymore. So until hard Brexit is reversed, we'll continue to have high migration and low economic growth. 

Yeah exactly. The BBC did an article about it over new year. I think we told our self the EU wouldn’t want us back but reality is because of Ukraine and the greater need of European defence there’s a lot more appetite amongst the EU than you might have expected for UK to rejoin. And I think the Labour Party deep down would like to rejoin. Problem is they’re too scared to open up that wound again. But polls show overwhelming favour in the Uk in both rejoining and also overwhelmingly favouring EU over the US nowadays as the geopolitical power to align with.  
 

68% have said they would happily take freedom of movement back now to get back in the single market. I think a lot of people realise now that freedom of movement didn’t mean just everyone wanted to come but meant that you largely got people coming to the uk who wanted to work and fill labour gaps often even temporarily from culturally similar countries and then go home. It was much easier to plug short term labour gaps without having to give out longer term visas to people from outside western countries in order to fill these gaps.

 

Changed my vote from Labour to LibDem btw in last years election because of Starmer’s weird red lines on holding up a hard Brexit, completely against both his voters wishes and clearly his own deep-down beliefs.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dxzyg9y3eo.amp

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, Bilo said:

2025 offers a real chance for the UK and EU to reset their relationship, and it’s a moment we can’t afford to let slip. With Labour now in government, there’s a fresh willingness to rebuild ties, and key events like the UK-EU summit and Poland’s focus on engaging Britain during its EU presidency give us the perfect platform to do so. But let’s be honest—while this is a priority for us, the EU has bigger fish to fry. They’re busy with Ukraine, trade issues with the US and China, and their own internal challenges. That means we need to be smart about how we approach this.

 

One thing we can’t do is box ourselves in with rigid red lines. Saying no to things like youth mobility schemes or closer trade alignment might appease certain domestic audiences, but it risks cutting off opportunities for real progress. A more pragmatic approach is essential if we want meaningful outcomes. Take something like a security pact—this is a win-win, especially given the current global instability. And a veterinary agreement could give a much-needed boost to our agricultural sector without undermining our other trade ambitions. These are sensible, achievable steps.

 

At home, we also need to get better at explaining why this matters. The public already supports stronger ties with the EU—polls show majorities back reducing trade barriers, tackling illegal migration, and cooperating on security. But we need to frame this reset as something that serves Britain’s interests, not as a concession to Brussels. Past mistakes, like David Cameron and Theresa May failing to sell their visions for EU relations, show us how not to do it. Contrast that with Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework, which was seen as a British solution and got a relatively easy ride. Presentation makes a difference.

 

This isn’t about going back to the EU with our cap in hand. It’s about being bold, pragmatic, and clear about what we want—and showing the British people how a better relationship with Europe benefits all of us. If we get this right, 2025 could be the year we finally turn the page on years of friction and move towards a partnership that works for everyone. It's pretty much the only way to promote growth and begin to control immigration. The reasons why we need a decent relationship with the EU for the latter are self-explanatory, and the reasons for the former are that the US is about to have a volatile, unpredictable, unreliable and probably largely incompetent administration.

 

 

I think bovril agrees with you, as do most of the population according to polls, it’s just that Starmer doesn’t and wants to hold up this failed Hard Brexit. It’s the UK setting these red lines not the EU.

[Bilo]

4 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Yeah exactly. The BBC did an article about it over new year. I think we told our self the EU wouldn’t want us back but reality is because of Ukraine and the greater need of European defence there’s a lot more appetite amongst the EU than you might have expected for UK to rejoin. And I think the Labour Party deep down would like to rejoin. Problem is they’re too scared to open up that wound again. But polls show overwhelming favour in the Uk in both rejoining and also overwhelmingly favouring EU over the US nowadays as the geopolitical power to align with.  
 

68% have said they would happily take freedom of movement back now to get back in the single market. I think a lot of people realise now that freedom of movement didn’t mean just everyone wanted to come but meant that you largely got people coming to the uk who wanted to work and fill labour gaps often even temporarily from culturally similar countries and then go home. It was much easier to plug short term labour gaps without having to give out longer term visas to people from outside western countries in order to fill these gaps.

 

Changed my vote from Labour to LibDem btw in last years election because of Starmer’s weird red lines on holding up a hard Brexit, completely against both his voters wishes and clearly his own deep-down beliefs.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dxzyg9y3eo.amp

Unfortunately, Starmer is so cautious that he wouldn't fart for fear of shitting himself.

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Bilo said:

2025 offers a real chance for the UK and EU to reset their relationship, and it’s a moment we can’t afford to let slip. With Labour now in government, there’s a fresh willingness to rebuild ties, and key events like the UK-EU summit and Poland’s focus on engaging Britain during its EU presidency give us the perfect platform to do so. But let’s be honest—while this is a priority for us, the EU has bigger fish to fry. They’re busy with Ukraine, trade issues with the US and China, and their own internal challenges. That means we need to be smart about how we approach this.

 

One thing we can’t do is box ourselves in with rigid red lines. Saying no to things like youth mobility schemes or closer trade alignment might appease certain domestic audiences, but it risks cutting off opportunities for real progress. A more pragmatic approach is essential if we want meaningful outcomes. Take something like a security pact—this is a win-win, especially given the current global instability. And a veterinary agreement could give a much-needed boost to our agricultural sector without undermining our other trade ambitions. These are sensible, achievable steps.

 

At home, we also need to get better at explaining why this matters. The public already supports stronger ties with the EU—polls show majorities back reducing trade barriers, tackling illegal migration, and cooperating on security. But we need to frame this reset as something that serves Britain’s interests, not as a concession to Brussels. Past mistakes, like David Cameron and Theresa May failing to sell their visions for EU relations, show us how not to do it. Contrast that with Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework, which was seen as a British solution and got a relatively easy ride. Presentation makes a difference.

 

This isn’t about going back to the EU with our cap in hand. It’s about being bold, pragmatic, and clear about what we want—and showing the British people how a better relationship with Europe benefits all of us. If we get this right, 2025 could be the year we finally turn the page on years of friction and move towards a partnership that works for everyone. It's pretty much the only way to promote growth and begin to control immigration.

 

 

With all due respect, and I appreciate that you took time to reply, I still find this quite vague and/or small-scale.

Hard Brexit = low growth and higher immigration. The irony is that voters anger at this might lead them to vote for a party led by someone who campaigned to leave the EU. It's a perpetual grievance machine. This is what I mean when I say it may have changed British politics in ways that we perhaps haven't seen yet. 

Edited 5 January by bovril

[Salisbury Fox]

7 minutes ago, Bilo said:

This is fairly solvable by rebuilding a closer relationship with the EU, and the small boats issue can be solved by opening up more safe routes so the people smugglers become redundant.

If safe routes are ever to be provided then the government would need to know how many they could take in to ensure the resources are available and in the right place to provide the support needed. There would likely have to be an increase in asylum case workers and they would have to be mindful that those who are refused may still use clandestine methods to get into the country anyway. In short, I believe that there’s a reason why it’s not been done already (less for directly from refugee camps) and it’s not just because of the political risks in doing so.

[bovril]

tbh if we rejoined the single market I doubt many European workers would even want to move here, we'd probably see greater flows in the opposite direction. 

[Bilo]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

With all due respect, and I appreciate that you took time to reply, I still find this quite vague and/or small-scale.

Hard Brexit = low growth and higher immigration. The irony is that voters anger at this might lead them to vote for a party led by someone who campaigned to leave the EU. It's a perpetual grievance machine. This is what I mean when I say it may have changed British politics in ways that we perhaps haven't seen yet. 

2025-2027:

 

Focus on mending UK-EU relationship

 

Join EFTA for access to the Single Market

 

Educate public on benefits of closer EU ties

 

 

2027-2030:

 

Aim to join European Economic Area (EEA)

 

Need approval from EFTA countries and EU27

 

Negotiate over freedom of movement and European Court of Justice

 

Gain public and business support

 

 

2030-2032:

 

Adopt EU rules (trade, environment, etc.)

 

Negotiate controlled freedom of movement

 

Hold a referendum on deeper EU integration

 

 

2032-2035:

 

Apply for full EU membership

 

Negotiate terms of re-entry (agriculture, euro, etc.)

 

Hold a second referendum to confirm support

 

Rejoin the EU by 2035

 

 

 

 

[Bilo]

6 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

If safe routes are ever to be provided then the government would need to know how many they could take in to ensure the resources are available and in the right place to provide the support needed. There would likely have to be an increase in asylum case workers and they would have to be mindful that those who are refused may still use clandestine methods to get into the country anyway. In short, I believe that there’s a reason why it’s not been done already (less for directly from refugee camps) and it’s not just because of the political risks in doing so.

The silly thing is, the "small boats problem" is ONLY a longstanding problem because so many would never accept the obvious (and relatively cheap) solution:

 

* Put the resources in place to process asylum applications quickly and correctly.

 

* Charter cheap ferries and planes for those seeking asylum on the requirement that all paperwork is filed on landing.

 

* Provide legal support to assist with that paperwork, in France and partner countries, in between the weekly sailings and flights.

 

* All applications to be decided within (say) 2 weeks of arrival because the resources have been put in place.

 

* Anyone attempting to cross avoiding that legal route will automatically be refused.

 

* Give asylum seekers the opportunity to work upon arrival. They get a job, integrate themselves, pay taxes and, crucially, can afford to secure their own housing. Hotel usage either eliminated or significantly curtailed. Whether or not they take the opportunity is to be considered in their application. 

 

Details would need to be worked out but the bare bones really ARE that simple.

 

No, or very little, custom left for the smugglers. Those arriving will be richer by the cost of a smuggled passage, making it easier for them to support themselves. Less cost in finding, tracking, and catching people who could be landing anywhere. Less cost (human and financial) in people lost in sunk dinghies. More money into the tax coffers, fewer asylum seekers in hotels with nothing to do all day and less chance of them being sucked into crime and the black market.

 

Basically, a win on all fronts except for Farage's blood pressure. Even that could be a win if it goes high enough. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

2025-2027:

 

Focus on mending UK-EU relationship

 

Join EFTA for access to the Single Market

 

Educate public on benefits of closer EU ties

 

 

2027-2030:

 

Aim to join European Economic Area (EEA)

 

Need approval from EFTA countries and EU27

 

Negotiate over freedom of movement and European Court of Justice

 

Gain public and business support

 

 

2030-2032:

 

Adopt EU rules (trade, environment, etc.)

 

Negotiate controlled freedom of movement

 

Hold a referendum on deeper EU integration

 

 

2032-2035:

 

Apply for full EU membership

 

Negotiate terms of re-entry (agriculture, euro, etc.)

 

Hold a second referendum to confirm support

 

Rejoin the EU by 2035

 

 

 

 

We've been here before.

 

What is "controlled freedom of movement"? How can we be in the EFTA or EEA and "negotiate" freedom of movement? You said in a previous post we shouldn't "box ourselves in".

 

Maybe we should just drop this absurd paranoia over EU freedom of movement and accept that millions of Brits enjoyed living and working in Europe visa free, and that being part of the world's biggest single market is more important than baby boomers having kittens when they hear Polish on the streets.  

[Bilo]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

tbh if we rejoined the single market I doubt many European workers would even want to move here, we'd probably see greater flows in the opposite direction. 

That in itself could help get young voters onside as they'd have opportunities they currently do not have. 

 

Then, as the economy grows and migration is more controlled, the grievances that the likes of Reform are preying on become less pronounced.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

That in itself could help get young voters onside as they'd have opportunities they currently do not have. 

 

Then, as the economy grows and migration is more controlled, the grievances that the likes of Reform are preying on become less pronounced.

Well yes that was my exact original point. The problems caused by Brexit ironically make Reform more popular.

[Bilo]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

We've been here before.

 

What is "controlled freedom of movement"? How can we be in the EFTA or EEA and "negotiate" freedom of movement? You said in a previous post we shouldn't "box ourselves in".

 

Maybe we should just drop this absurd paranoia over EU freedom of movement and accept that millions of Brits enjoyed living and working in Europe visa free, and that being part of the world's biggest single market is more important than baby boomers having kittens when they hear Polish on the streets.  

I agree with you. I would rejoin the EU tomorrow as it's clearly the most rational decision we could take as a country. I see Brexit as the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez, and have done since 24th June 2016.

 

The problem is that the political obstacles are very real. The EU has to know that they can trust us, closer ties have to be sold at home and the positive impacts of closer ties have to be felt before we can advocate for even more close ties. 

 

What I think the government needs to do more of is use the Boomers' xenophobia against them by pointing out that we had more de facto control and coherence in immigration policies before Brexit than we do now. Small boat crossings weren't an issue in 2016 and are now. Explicitly join the dots. Be brave and say out loud that Brexit is a failure. Those who see it as a religion are not voting Labour anyway.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

If we acknowledge the historical record as put forward by anthropologists and archaeologists then whilst individual acts of altruism have occurred, species-wide it appears to be non-existent. 

 

Survival of the fittest appears to be primal, in both meanings of the word and limited to groups within species.

 

As I've said previously, we will survive only by adapting, and we will most likely be forced to that rather than moving in step with Nature.

 

If that were universally true, then we wouldn't have had the society built through collaboration that we have today. That being said, goodness knows there's been enough acts of social Darwinism, both individual and group-based, to see where you're coming from here.

 

But the above also only remains true if we believe those rules of Darwin to apply to us immutably, even though we are aware of them, what they mean and therefore may well have the ability to change them if we have the will to do so. Because no matter how well a species adapts, sooner or later something happens that it can't adapt to and the end result is never pretty. If we don't want that to happen to us (or indeed to the species we like to appoint ourselves steward of), then we might have to think about acting outside the rulebook that The Origin of Species set.

 

In short, we can adapt proactively rather than reactively, and doing that will, at some point, become critically important. It may be so already.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

I agree with you. I would rejoin the EU tomorrow as it's clearly the most rational decision we could take as a country. I see Brexit as the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez, and have done since 24th June 2016.

 

The problem is that the political obstacles are very real. The EU has to know that they can trust us, closer ties have to be sold at home and the positive impacts of closer ties have to be felt before we can advocate for even more close ties. 

 

What I think the government needs to do more of is use the Boomers' xenophobia against them by pointing out that we had more de facto control and coherence in immigration policies before Brexit than we do now. Small boat crossings weren't an issue in 2016 and are now. Explicitly join the dots. Be brave and say out loud that Brexit is a failure. Those who see it as a religion are not voting Labour anyway.

Even without joining the EU I don't think it'd be that difficult to rejoin EFTA/EEA if we want, I think European countries would be quite happy to have us in the economic area but without us meddling in the politics. That was an option originally anyway. But we would need to accept full FoM. So the problem is more with us.

[Bilo]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

Even without joining the EU I don't think it'd be that difficult to rejoin EFTA/EEA if we want, I think European countries would be quite happy to have us in the economic area but without us meddling in the politics. That was an option originally anyway. But we would need to accept full FoM. So the problem is more with us.

I would expect the big changes such as that to be tested with, for example, reintroducing Erasmus and seeing how it goes. Germany is already making noises about youth mobility as the key to better relations. 

 

See how that goes down, chip away with more substantive measures after, win a second term and then go for EFTA or EEA membership in term two. 

 

Mandelson is already talking about rejoining in ten years, and it seems highly unlikely that such a big step would be taken without incremental changes happening to prep the ground.

 

The main thing they have to do is to ignore the Boomer tantrums as they do it. Brutal as it sounds, a lot of them won't be voting in 10, 15 or 20 years for obvious reasons. Younger voters, who want the opportunities, will be.

[SkidsFox]

Even Hartley-Brewer is telling Musk to back off.

 

[leicsmac]

Reform HQ and Twitter:

 

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Bilo said:

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

It's finally happening. A foreigner is coming for Farage's job. We've reached peak Britain.

[Skidmark]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Was actually wondering if his behaviour, particularly online, was due to Autism..

As someone who has the same condition, (diagnosed as a teenager) I see a lot of my self in this sort of behaviour.

 

I become incredibly obsessive over ideas/go over the top with things sometimes.  Fortunately for me a lot of my 'quirks' (as my wife and family call them) lead into work for me and I can indulge them in a positive way. 

 

The obsession with scandal, anti-Starmer/establishment over British politics is a strange one, but one he's cottoned onto and he's now gone nuclear on it. I'm not diagnosing him, but just alluding to the fact that a lot of his obsession and tweets at the moment could be attributed to his condition. Not excusing it either. Someone with so much power, wealth and influence must develop some responsibility. 

 

 

[bovril]

53 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

Even Hartley-Brewer is telling Musk to back off.

 

A simple google. I'm sure there are more.

 

A lot of these people's anxiety is that Britain is now on the receiving end of denigration and outside interference the same way British media and political elites used to do to other countries. This is true for much of the British left too.

[Bilo]

[Parafox]

40 minutes ago, Skidmark said:

As someone who has the same condition, (diagnosed as a teenager) I see a lot of my self in this sort of behaviour.

 

I become incredibly obsessive over ideas/go over the top with things sometimes.  Fortunately for me a lot of my 'quirks' (as my wife and family call them) lead into work for me and I can indulge them in a positive way. 

 

The obsession with scandal, anti-Starmer/establishment over British politics is a strange one, but one he's cottoned onto and he's now gone nuclear on it. I'm not diagnosing him, but just alluding to the fact that a lot of his obsession and tweets at the moment could be attributed to his condition. Not excusing it either. Someone with so much power, wealth and influence must develop some responsibility. 

 

 

 

But as a person living with this condition you must know that this is almost impossible?

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

A simple google. I'm sure there are more.

 

A lot of these people's anxiety is that Britain is now on the receiving end of denigration and outside interference the same way British media and political elites used to do to other countries. This is true for much of the British left too.

Funny thing is it’s just done by some guy tweeting whatever pops into his head at any moment as his attention rapidly swings from one thing to the next. A bit like how the UK drew the borders of the Middle East over a lunch break after WW2 and have pretty much led to 80 years of war and in fighting because of it.

 

I get why conspiracy theorists find the idea of a secret society of intelligent people at the top pulling all the strings comforting. The reality of the world and how much random trails of thought from some guy affect the world is much scarier 

Edited 5 January by Sampson

[Salisbury Fox]

3 hours ago, Bilo said:

The silly thing is, the "small boats problem" is ONLY a longstanding problem because so many would never accept the obvious (and relatively cheap) solution:

 

* Put the resources in place to process asylum applications quickly and correctly.

 

* Charter cheap ferries and planes for those seeking asylum on the requirement that all paperwork is filed on landing.

 

* Provide legal support to assist with that paperwork, in France and partner countries, in between the weekly sailings and flights.

 

* All applications to be decided within (say) 2 weeks of arrival because the resources have been put in place.

 

* Anyone attempting to cross avoiding that legal route will automatically be refused.

 

* Give asylum seekers the opportunity to work upon arrival. They get a job, integrate themselves, pay taxes and, crucially, can afford to secure their own housing. Hotel usage either eliminated or significantly curtailed. Whether or not they take the opportunity is to be considered in their application. 

 

Details would need to be worked out but the bare bones really ARE that simple.

 

No, or very little, custom left for the smugglers. Those arriving will be richer by the cost of a smuggled passage, making it easier for them to support themselves. Less cost in finding, tracking, and catching people who could be landing anywhere. Less cost (human and financial) in people lost in sunk dinghies. More money into the tax coffers, fewer asylum seekers in hotels with nothing to do all day and less chance of them being sucked into crime and the black market.

 

Basically, a win on all fronts except for Farage's blood pressure. Even that could be a win if it goes high enough. 

I think it would be naive to think that safe routes like say in France would not be swamped by an enormous amount of genuine and economic migrants. Many cases are very complex and so I very much doubt cases could be resolved in a general sense within 2 weeks without removing many of the existing safeguards. Those who still use other methods of entry will still pose a problem if they are undocumented.

 

I’m not entirely sure of the reasons why asylum seekers can’t work before a decision is made but I would expect there to be issues around security and complications with pension contributions to name a couple.

 

Personally I would like more resources given to addressing the black market which may help address the pull factor and exploitation of vulnerable people. 

[Bilo]

31 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think it would be naive to think that safe routes like say in France would not be swamped by an enormous amount of genuine and economic migrants. Many cases are very complex and so I very much doubt cases could be resolved in a general sense within 2 weeks without removing many of the existing safeguards. Those who still use other methods of entry will still pose a problem if they are undocumented.

 

I’m not entirely sure of the reasons why asylum seekers can’t work before a decision is made but I would expect there to be issues around security and complications with pension contributions to name a couple.

 

Personally I would like more resources given to addressing the black market which may help address the pull factor and exploitation of vulnerable people. 

I don't disagree that safe routes, like those in France, could get overwhelmed. It’s fair to ask whether a legal system like this might attract more people—genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants alike. But the reality is, many of these people are already trying to come here, whether through dangerous crossings or by relying on smugglers. A system like this wouldn’t so much increase demand as offer a safer, better alternative to what’s already happening. By working with partner countries and setting clear eligibility rules, we’d be able to manage the numbers while also reducing the chaos and danger of illegal routes.

 

Now, onto the two-week processing time. I get why you’re sceptical—it’s a bold claim, and we know asylum cases can be really complicated. For it to work, the government would need to throw serious resources at it—more staff, better systems, and proper pre-screening in places like France. Could every case be wrapped up in two weeks? Probably not, especially the tricky ones. But for simpler cases—like people who’ve already got their paperwork in order—it might be doable. And even if some take longer, having a faster process overall would mean less waiting, fewer people stuck in limbo, and a big dent in the backlog. An alternative could be an agreement that asylum seekers are held in that country while the claim is processed; both countries could support the applicant in terms of living expenses etc.

 

You also make a good point about people who still arrive undocumented. Even with legal routes, not everyone’s going to play by the rules, and some will still risk dangerous crossings. But this approach tries to tackle that by making it clear that if you don’t use the legal route, your claim won’t be considered. That creates a big incentive to stick to the system. It won’t stop illegal crossings entirely—nothing will—but it would reduce them, especially if the legal alternative is seen as fair and efficient.

 

In terms of asylum seekers working, I understand your concerns. Especially around things like security checks and pensions. But those issues can be managed. Security checks would still happen as part of the application process, and most asylum seekers aren’t a threat—they’re people trying to escape awful situations. As for pensions, there are ways to handle contributions temporarily until their status is resolved. Letting people work doesn’t just help them support themselves—it also helps them integrate, contributes to the economy, and cuts down on the need for state support. It’s hard to see how that’s a bad thing.

 

Finally, your point about tackling the black market is spot on. The exploitation of asylum seekers and vulnerable people is a huge problem, and cracking down on dodgy employers needs to be part of the solution. If asylum seekers are allowed to work legally, they’re far less likely to end up in unsafe, exploitative jobs. And better enforcement against the black market would mean fewer opportunities for illegal activity to thrive.

 

All in all, you’ve raised some fair concerns, and none of this is simple. But with the right resources, safeguards, and a bit of common sense, this kind of system could work. It’s about creating something that’s fair, humane, and efficient—both for the people seeking safety and for the country itself.