Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

You was doing ever so well for a while.

It is NOT Brexit failure, ITS AN EU FAILURE. The EU borders have been as tight as a sieve for years. Only now are they realising they have messed up. Schengan made it worse, with travel being ever so easy and the terrorists loved it.

The demographics alone of who is coming and paying for the criminals to do so, should bother any nation.
Under 35 single men. This isn't a compassion situation at all. Its economic migration , hiding behind asylum.

I'm glad you finally accept it is now a major issue. You didn't want to for a long time. It is now the number 1 concern in the UK.
Every life lost to one of these illegals, is blood on the hands of politicians failing to do their jobs.
Why is it bigoted to want secure borders? It is horse **** like that, that has allowed this problem to explode.
You want international cooperation, better start with your EU mates.
Your country list is misleading. Iran/ Turkey/Pakistan/Uganda are the neighbouring countries of the trouble zones. Germany is only on that list, because of Merkels madness. Something the Germans now acknowledge and has see a massive swing to the right in its politics because of it.
Austria have now joined Germany in deporting back to Afghanistan, defying all the moaning from the ECHR.

If paying £6 for entry into Europe is all you can moan about, then god help you. I'd sooner know who is in and out and the country better protected. You're a well travelled man, I'm sure you have been to countries that take their border checks very seriously.

Change the record, Tricky.

1. A principle Brexit aim was to pacify those like you and tighten our borders. It self evidently hasn’t worked or, almost five years on, you wouldn’t still be moaning about it. That is another Brexit failure.

2. I’ve always accepted it’s an issue…just recognised that it’s not the number one issue and looked for a more compassionate solution.

3. It isn’t bigoted to want secure borders…it is bigoted (and much more besides) to take part in or advocate activities that place the lives of those you randomly decide you don’t want here in jeopardy.

4. Migration isn’t the ‘number 1 concern in the UK’ and you repeatedly claiming that it is time and time again won’t make it true. How do you explain Labour winning the huge majority they did less than two months ago had immigration been the number one issue?

5. I’m all in favour of appropriate border checks…I’m not in favour of UK citizens suddenly being treated like some sort of pariah at border controls throughout Europe or having to pay for a ‘visa’ to enter a continent I’ve grown up considering us all to be a valued part of.

[Andy_Faber]

1. A principle Brexit aim was to pacify those like you and tighten our borders. It self evidently hasn’t worked or, almost five years on, you wouldn’t still be moaning about it. That is another Brexit failure.

Without wanting for one moment to unite you and TTR for fear of the world ceasing to turn on its axis or some such calamity, I think you are both wrong.

You have provided no evidence that Brexit is the cause either through bad action or inaction - suggestin there's any correlation is like saying Luton Town is responsible for climate change because both have gone up in the past few years. Likewise however, TTR blaming EU. I maintain that the failure is that the UK govt(s) along with the govts of many other countries move at the speed and agility of the supertanker on Teletubbies (maybe you were teaching when teletubbies was on, believe me it was slow and cumbersome), while the 'criminal gangs' move at lightning pace when they need to in adapting their business model and 'removing obstacles'. I really don't think any humane national state stands much of a chance of avoiding pourous borders if the gangs choose to target it

[Andy_Faber]

So, to change the subject, as Sithappens tried to a few days ago with limited success, what do y'all think about road tax being applied by distance travelled? Despite being a fairly high mileage user, I'd be all for it subject to it being possible to apply it fairly.

To quote some internet news page or other ' A public transport charity has called upon chancellor Rachel Reeves to impose a 'pay-per-mile' scheme on British drivers, days after motoring service company RAC described such a scheme as ‘the way forward’.

But what is a ‘pay-per-mile’ scheme, and how would it work in Britain?

‘Pay-per-mile’ schemes (also known as ‘road pricing’) have been discussed due to an increasing shortfall in fuel duty due to the adoption of electric vehicles. Duties levied on petrol, diesel and other fuels currently generate around £25 billion a year in revenue for the Treasury.

‘Road pricing’ or ‘pay-per-mile’ has been successfully used in countries such as Singapore for decades, and New Zealand has a system where some vehicles pay for road miles in advance in units of 1,000km, with similar systems being trialed in Europe for goods vehicles.

However, previous governments have shunned the idea of introducing such a scheme in the UK.'

Anyone?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I like it but then it barely impacts me. Has always struck me as odd that my Mum who would do a few hundred miles a year paid the same as a sales rep doing maybe that much in a day.

And, in the true spirit of irony, let's use the increased revenue from it to pay the train drivers increased remuneration, rather than dumping that on passengers.

[Andy_Faber]

I like it but then it barely impacts me. Has always struck me as odd that my Mum who would do a few hundred miles a year paid the same as a sales rep doing maybe that much in a day.

And, in the true spirit of irony, let's use the increased revenue from it to pay the train drivers increased remuneration, rather than dumping that on passengers.

I assumed use for a non-motoring purpose was a given, that's why I didn't mention it

[swaledale]

Regarding ‘safe routes’, HMG’s mid-23 policy paper summarises (I won’t be in ultra bore and delve into the acts) pretty well, and shows that there have been, and continue to be, ‘safe routes’ under many circumstances. My guess is that those travelling ‘illegally’ do so because either they know they don’t qualify (viz Albanians in recent years, Vietnamese currently) or they can’t be bothered with the admin. But there ARE safe routes, and it’s notable that even in the Labour rush to rubbish all things Tory, these routes haven’t been widened, especially to the ‘come one come all’ hopes of the placard wavers

But then your guess is both wrong and you are ill informed.

FACT: There are very few safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK. The few existing pathways are extremely restricted by nationality and number.

There is also no way for someone to claim asylum in the UK unless they are physically in the country, and there is currently no asylum visa to allow someone to enter regularly in order to access this legal right.

The ‘safe and legal’ routes currently in practice in the UK are:

Resettlement programmes
Bespoke schemes
Refugee family reunion

That's 3 very restrictive methods (and very much more restrictive than existed prior to Brexit) Thats hardly "many different" safe routes.

The reasons these are extremely restrictive is that the Tory government deliberately made it difficult for anyone to claim asylum) and in the majority of cases aren't even meeting the numbers that the Uk Government pledge to meet.

There is one principle reason asylum seekers resort to dangerous crossings - because there are no existing means to safely apply for refugee status in the UK without reaching the country first, even though one might qualify unless you happen to be lucky and fit into one of the 3 schemes which most don't. Yet 6 in 10 asylum seekers who arrrive by other means mainly boats are successful on first application.

There is one reason why boat crossings (which the figures being quoted in this thread refer to increased since 2018, (prior to that they were negligible) that is the failure or indeed refusal by the UK Government to continue with the procedures and agreements with the EU for processing asylum seekers and returning those that don't qualify that existed prior to Brexit.

Overall asylum claims vary considerably, but the figures being quoted are for boat crossings not total asylum claims, boat crossings have increased since 2018 due to the failure of the the then UK government to reach agreements on the processing and return of asylum seekers after Brexit. France even offered to have a processing centre at Calais.

Seeing that in the year ending June 2024 the top 5 nationalities claiming asylum were Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam and Bangladesh, your assumption re Albanians is wide of the mark (I appreciate the right wing media make much noise about Albanians, though since the UK Government reached an agreement with Albania over returns that has quietened down a bit. Who knows why the right win g media emphasise a nationality that isn't the main problem, I'm sure I couldn't think why they would do this rather than consider the others who are fleeing wars but there we are.

The figures vary but overall between 60 and 70% of applications are successful on first assessment.

Asylum seekers made up 7% of immigrants in 2023 - hardly a crisis.

Yes its noticeable and indeed regrettable that Labour are at the moment not moving on improving the routes available for Asylum seekers to be able to claim asylum and be processed. One would think that reality (and that Starmer will remember he was a Human Rights lawyer) will eventually prevail, in that the only way to disrupt the smugglers will be to provide a safe and legal route as existed before Brexit.

I ahve no bias other than a wish that the UK obeys its obligations under International law, treats people with dignity and respect and actually properly managers the asylum issue, rather than use it cynically in an electoral power game. Appealing to people's base instincts about "foreigners" is cynical and frankly inhuman.

I agree with your analogy on drugs, in fact the only way to "smash" or severely disrupt the drug smugglers and distributors, would be a sensible combination of legalisation and decriminalisation of the use of the majority of drugs. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never will, unfortunately, none of todays politicians many of whom are rumoured and in some cases proven to have chmically indulged, haven't the courage to tell the truth to an electorate that by and large hasn't a clue about drugs.

[ramAnag]

You have provided no evidence that Brexit is the cause either through bad action or inaction - suggestin there's any correlation is like saying Luton Town is responsible for climate change because both have gone up in the past few years. Likewise however, TTR blaming EU. I maintain that the failure is that the UK govt(s) along with the govts of many other countries move at the speed and agility of the supertanker on Teletubbies (maybe you were teaching when teletubbies was on, believe me it was slow and cumbersome), while the 'criminal gangs' move at lightning pace when they need to in adapting their business model and 'removing obstacles'. I really don't think any humane national state stands much of a chance of avoiding pourous borders if the gangs choose to target it

I can understand your concern over organised gangsÂ…but the rest of itÂ…time for bed.

Has to be the strangest of strange analogies…while LTFC and climate change have nothing at all in common, a major Brexiteer rationale was that…Leaving the EU ‘offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders’.
Given what Migration Watch claims to have seen happen since 2019 that simple basic aim has failed completelyÂ…and we know the rest.

As for Teletubbies and supertankersÂ…no idea what youÂ’re talking aboutÂ…leave me out of it!

P.S. What’s with the Â’s?

[Geoff Parkstone]

What's with the "A's" ? They are moving from Oakland to Las Vegas I believe....via Sacramento whilst the stadium is being built.

[Andy_Faber]

But then your guess is both wrong and you are ill informed.

FACT: There are very few safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK. The few existing pathways are extremely restricted by nationality and number.

There is also no way for someone to claim asylum in the UK unless they are physically in the country, and there is currently no asylum visa to allow someone to enter regularly in order to access this legal right.

The ‘safe and legal’ routes currently in practice in the UK are:

Resettlement programmes
Bespoke schemes
Refugee family reunion

That's 3 very restrictive methods (and very much more restrictive than existed prior to Brexit) Thats hardly "many different" safe routes.

The reasons these are extremely restrictive is that the Tory government deliberately made it difficult for anyone to claim asylum) and in the majority of cases aren't even meeting the numbers that the Uk Government pledge to meet.

There is one principle reason asylum seekers resort to dangerous crossings - because there are no existing means to safely apply for refugee status in the UK without reaching the country first, even though one might qualify unless you happen to be lucky and fit into one of the 3 schemes which most don't. Yet 6 in 10 asylum seekers who arrrive by other means mainly boats are successful on first application.

There is one reason why boat crossings (which the figures being quoted in this thread refer to increased since 2018, (prior to that they were negligible) that is the failure or indeed refusal by the UK Government to continue with the procedures and agreements with the EU for processing asylum seekers and returning those that don't qualify that existed prior to Brexit.

Overall asylum claims vary considerably, but the figures being quoted are for boat crossings not total asylum claims, boat crossings have increased since 2018 due to the failure of the the then UK government to reach agreements on the processing and return of asylum seekers after Brexit. France even offered to have a processing centre at Calais.

Seeing that in the year ending June 2024 the top 5 nationalities claiming asylum were Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam and Bangladesh, your assumption re Albanians is wide of the mark (I appreciate the right wing media make much noise about Albanians, though since the UK Government reached an agreement with Albania over returns that has quietened down a bit. Who knows why the right win g media emphasise a nationality that isn't the main problem, I'm sure I couldn't think why they would do this rather than consider the others who are fleeing wars but there we are.

The figures vary but overall between 60 and 70% of applications are successful on first assessment.

Asylum seekers made up 7% of immigrants in 2023 - hardly a crisis.

Yes its noticeable and indeed regrettable that Labour are at the moment not moving on improving the routes available for Asylum seekers to be able to claim asylum and be processed. One would think that reality (and that Starmer will remember he was a Human Rights lawyer) will eventually prevail, in that the only way to disrupt the smugglers will be to provide a safe and legal route as existed before Brexit.

I ahve no bias other than a wish that the UK obeys its obligations under International law, treats people with dignity and respect and actually properly managers the asylum issue, rather than use it cynically in an electoral power game. Appealing to people's base instincts about "foreigners" is cynical and frankly inhuman.

I agree with your analogy on drugs, in fact the only way to "smash" or severely disrupt the drug smugglers and distributors, would be a sensible combination of legalisation and decriminalisation of the use of the majority of drugs. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never will, unfortunately, none of todays politicians many of whom are rumoured and in some cases proven to have chmically indulged, haven't the courage to tell the truth to an electorate that by and large hasn't a clue about drugs.

In post #1557 you stated 'the Tories closed all legal routes to claim asylum'. You now state 'There are very few safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK'. My comment to rA was 'Swales 'explanation' is factually inaccurate/misleading', so thanks for proving me right with your own words.

My issue isn't about immigration Swale, its (in life in general) about people or organisations with a 'platform' (in your this case an orange-carton-sized one but hey ho) who influence the gullible with, as I mentioned, inaccurate and misleading information. And that's people on all sides of the argument, any argument - Tricky for instance, who just scatterguns anything remotely to his worldview - but occasionally some of it hits the mark and is worthy of further investigation, some ultimately somewhere near the truth, some a load of crap. However, I have an even bigger issue with people who suck up whatever they're fed from 'their side' without question, so be thankful in a way that you're not top of my list of silly little frustrations...

Having vented on that subject, you may be right on legalising/decriminalising certain 'drugs' but we're a million miles/years away from that in UK, and although I don't have much of a clue (I struggle taking Lemsips) what stories do come out in the media suggest there's some pretty uncompromising chaps involved. I just don't see politicians being close enough to the real world to appreciate that

[Andy_Faber]

What's with the "A's" ? They are moving from Oakland to Las Vegas I believe....via Sacramento whilst the stadium is being built.

Way too subtle Geep