This is a hypothetical question since the judgment of the supreme court hasn't been passed down however SKS has stated that, even if the policy is implemented as lawful and manages to deliver, he would scrap it.
Is that a sensible idea or an emotive one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a hypothetical question since the judgment of the supreme court hasn't been passed down however SKS has stated that, even if the policy is implemented as lawful and manages to deliver, he would scrap it.
Is that a sensible idea or an emotive one?"
a sensible one: it's a totally stupid policy, cost loads, probably illegally and is reciprocal so we get their 'illegals' utter waste of time and money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a hypothetical question since the judgment of the supreme court hasn't been passed down however SKS has stated that, even if the policy is implemented as lawful and manages to deliver, he would scrap it.
Is that a sensible idea or an emotive one?"
An emotive one:
Assuming the court says that it's legal, most of the money has already been spent, so it makes sense to try it out and see if it reduces migration. If it doesn't, it can be scrapped.
A sensible one:
Whatever the court says, most of his voters believe it's a human rights violation, so it's sensible to drop it and give those voters something to feel good about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's an emotive topic because it's radical. But what else are our government supposed to do. Our esteemed neighbours are unhelpful, the dinghies can't be intercepted at sea, nothing works. So do we sit gormlessly watching our borders being illegally breached day after day for decades? With a likely wave of Palestinians on the way, we HAVE to do something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"It's an emotive topic because it's radical. But what else are our government supposed to do. Our esteemed neighbours are unhelpful, the dinghies can't be intercepted at sea, nothing works. So do we sit gormlessly watching our borders being illegally breached day after day for decades? With a likely wave of Palestinians on the way, we HAVE to do something."
I'm not sure it is that radical, I believe the UNHRC use the services of Rwanda to house and train refugees.
While not exactly the same setup it is being used to support refugees, and maybe the UK government should adapt the scheme to be more like the UNHRC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a hypothetical question since the judgment of the supreme court hasn't been passed down however SKS has stated that, even if the policy is implemented as lawful and manages to deliver, he would scrap it.
Is that a sensible idea or an emotive one?"
He thinks it's a vote winning thing to say.
Hes wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"This is a hypothetical question since the judgment of the supreme court hasn't been passed down however SKS has stated that, even if the policy is implemented as lawful and manages to deliver, he would scrap it.
Is that a sensible idea or an emotive one?"
I have my doubts about the work ability of the scheme but you specifically say if it's judged to be lawful and delivering, which I'm taking as reducing the small boats crossing. Then I would say it's wrong to scrap it. It may be a popular thing to say before judgment and implementation but if successful he would be taking us back to square one and worst he would be putting people's life's at risk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
