We were specifically discussing those causing havoc near Calais. It is for the French government to assess and process those migrants as they have also taken responsibility for those they have moved to other locations around the country. As highlighted the UK government has done an enormous amount in the immediate problem areas.
His holiness Jacob Rees Mogg now thinks HM Treasury is fiddling the figures. It's funny because I though all those in favour of Brexit were agreed that a financial hit was a price worth paying. It now seems that may not be the case...
Plenty of evidence stacking up showing the Treasury has always been dead against Brexit. They got it wrong in the past and this latest report will turn out just as suspect.
They have got nothing wrong about Brexit. They couldn't have because it hasn't happened yet. And of course HMT was dead against Brexit. Very few economic experts were not. That doesn't mean they will not deliver it. I'm not mad about it but will still do my job.
Under International law which i presume you adhere to, these migrants have not applied for refugee status in France and have thus the right to claim refugee status in the UK IF they can get there. They are part of a wider issue.. and there it would be facile to deal with them in isolation. Better deal with the cause rather than the symptom
Rees-Mogg and his fellow conspirator Baker are a disgrace. Mogg should have the whip withdrawn and Baker fired from the government. It is long established that you do not attack the civil service as they cannot be drawn into an argument. How many more times are we to be told that assessments are being prepared, then they not, then they are but it is secret. I cannot remember a time until now when on a daily basis a government has been is such turmoil.
I'm sick of it tbh. Baker is showing a worse degree of contempt because as a Minister he will know better about what is going on. JRM has never got close to a Whitehall Department so can be forgiven for showing complete ignorance...
A refugee has a right to safe asylum, which presumably is the first 'safe' country outside of the problem area. This does not give the refugee a right to choose a particular region. Many of those in Calais are economic migrants or those dodging national service. They are not entitled to break the law in trying to reach the UK.
Civil servants should be impartial which they are clearly not. They were implicated in the project fear and are still conspiring to damage the governments attempts to secure a good Brexit. Like some on here they are deluded into thinking the process can be reversed.
As you know Yorkie I feel the whole structure of migration and refugee status is ill thought out. However it was my understanding that under international law a person is obliged to apply for refuge in the first country they arrive at that does not threaten them - that is the logic of being at risk as a refugee - as opposed to being a migrant seeking a better life. Is that incorrect?
It is many years since I was a civil servant but one thing I remember absolutely is that the civil service try to be loyal to the current government. When we experienced a change of government we put aside whatever projects we had been working on in order to focus on those desired by the new team. There was no doubt whatsoever the civil service valued its impartiality over everything.
It is a shame some of this has been lost. They should have refused Cameron's request to get involved in the 'leave' side campaign. Didn't a parliamentary committee criticise civil servants for taking sides?
Can you give examples of how civil servants are biased as you say they clearly are? Of course you cannot. Just wishful thinking as all the forecasts show that Brexit will be detrimental to the country, something that you cannot disprove. The vast majority of these hard working people prepare what they are asked to prepare, and when they have done the work it should be open and transparent, not hidden because it looks bad.
A difficult one this. The civil service are obliged to perform as their masters - the incumbent government directs. However Cameron probably should have realised that this was an area that he should have not been given to the civil servants to perform. It was the politician in asking rather than the civil service in obeying that was at fault. I do not want to see the day when the civil service refuse to do their duty because they do not like the government. Who would like the American system of political civil servants?
I think a lot of people would argue that the "expert forecasts" were biased. Whether they were or not is subjective. For those of us on the Remain side the forecasts all showed what we expected - that leaving the EU would not be economically sensible. I can understand though that for those of a different persuasion it could look like bias.
Condemnation of the Tory government in that report. "The use of the machinery of government during the referendum contributed to a perception that the civil service were, in some way, biased". Note they used the word perception. That is not saying they were biased.
