Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
As I've said many times, we should provide safe routes for refugees to get here to apply for asylum.

Safe Routes Save Futures - Refugee Council

And you honestly believe that with millions of economic migrants (mostly male) wanted to come to the UK for a better life, that is going to stop them paying people traffickers when they can't get on your expanded refugee list?

Cloud cuckoo land
 
And you honestly believe that with millions of economic migrants (mostly male) wanted to come to the UK for a better life, that is going to stop them paying people traffickers when they can't get on your expanded refugee list?

Cloud cuckoo land

It's almost as though you don't read what I say.

The vast majority of those crossing the Channel are genuine refugees. There were 28,000 crossings last year, not 'millions'. If 80% were refugees, that makes less than 6,000 illegals, which is manageable. If we provide safe routes it would be clear that those that continue to use illegal alternatives are indeed economic migrants.

By the way, the term 'economic migrants' is used as pejorative for people who just want to come here to earn a living. We're in need of more of these at the moment - particularly young, fit males.
 
Isn't the ECHR independent, made up of judges from all across Europe including the UK? I may be totally wrong mind

yes 100%. Only nations not in it are Belarus and Russia, Russia only kicked out recently but it’s fine the U.K. can leave that and it leaves Johnson and co to have even less accountability and we know how trustworthy they are <laugh> It’ll get pushed as nasty foreigners wanting to hurt the U.K. and people will lap that **** up. Meanwhile over time our and more importantly our kids rights will be eroded and big business can make more profits from them and their standards of living will deteriorate.

some of us warned that leaving the Eu would see rights cut back… but were told it was project fear, rights to protest already taking a hit, more to come, if by some miracle the bootlickers eventually see what’s happening it’ll most likely be too late. Grrrr foreigners though.
 
It's almost as though you don't read what I say.

The vast majority of those crossing the Channel are genuine refugees. There were 28,000 crossings last year, not 'millions'. If 80% were refugees, that makes less than 6,000 illegals, which is manageable. If we provide safe routes it would be clear that those that continue to use illegal alternatives are indeed economic migrants.

By the way, the term 'economic migrants' is used as pejorative for people who just want to come here to earn a living. We're in need of more of these at the moment - particularly young, fit males.

I said there are millions of economic migrants wanting to come. We have over a million illegals already and as I've said, the numbers coming in are increasing exponentially. They come in having thrown away their phones and all identity papers. I do not believe most are not genuine asylum seekers ( backed up by border force officials who speak to them informally and confirm this). But with no identification, they're given the benefit of the doubt.

You say, "if we provide safe routes, it would be clear that those that continue to use illegal alternatives are indeed economic migrants" Ok, my question to you is, what do we do with these economic migrants that you've identified, when they land?
 
It's almost as though you don't read what I say.

The vast majority of those crossing the Channel are genuine refugees. There were 28,000 crossings last year, not 'millions'. If 80% were refugees, that makes less than 6,000 illegals, which is manageable. If we provide safe routes it would be clear that those that continue to use illegal alternatives are indeed economic migrants.

By the way, the term 'economic migrants' is used as pejorative for people who just want to come here to earn a living. We're in need of more of these at the moment - particularly young, fit males.

It’s just something to firm up the Tory voter base and distract them from the daily **** ups, 4 bill on ppe up in smoke is easily ignored. it has no realistic benefits but it sounds good to them. If these people are risking the journey the small chance of being sent to Rwanda is just another small obstacle and won’t act as a deterrent, a very costly token gesture… so just standard Tory policy.
 
It's not part of the EU. Here is the judge pool:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c

It amuses me that those that criticise the Rwanda scheme have no remotely viable alternative to the problem of organised crime and illegal immigration

Seems I was right. An independent court. Would be stupid to distance ourselves even further than we already have but I suppose the tories are trying to claw back their UKIP support.