FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour landslide?
Labour landslide?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Tax will go up so ok if you like to hand over your cash." Both parties would have had to raise tax, they just didn't want to talk about it.. | |||
"Tax will go up so ok if you like to hand over your cash. Both parties would have had to raise tax, they just didn't want to talk about it.." A subject that all parties avoid. | |||
"Tax will go up so ok if you like to hand over your cash. Both parties would have had to raise tax, they just didn't want to talk about it.. A subject that all parties avoid. " it's frustrating, we can all see the state of the economy so just be honest and fess up.. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Will there be a new leader of the Conservatives also? " He'll resign tomorrow, concede defeat by about 5 am then step down.. If he holds onto his seat it's how long does he stay as an MP or go back to where he made his money.. | |||
"Will there be a new leader of the Conservatives also? " They will take a while to pick. They need to decide if they want to move back to grown up politics, or go fully bezerker and try to win back those lost to Reform. | |||
"The Tories are out, that’s what counts." On the one hand it's good news yes, on the other the replacement is still Tory lite | |||
 | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month "Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is? | |||
| |||
"Will there be a new leader of the Conservatives also? He'll resign tomorrow, concede defeat by about 5 am then step down.. If he holds onto his seat it's how long does he stay as an MP or go back to where he made his money.." I almost wonder if he's silently hoping to lose his seat, as the first PM to do so. He can scraper and not be missed | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide." exactly that the big winner for me is libdems | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide.exactly that the big winner for me is libdems " Yay!!!!!!!! | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide." Either way, a massive Labour majority. | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority." Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse." FPTP sucks | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. FPTP sucks" Sinn Fein on 7 seats with 0.7% of the vote. I know they don't take their seats. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?"No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find. | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. FPTP sucks" Albeit our reasoning differes, on that I think we are agreed. | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. FPTP sucks Sinn Fein on 7 seats with 0.7% of the vote. I know they don't take their seats. " reform 14% and 4 seats Lib Dems 12% 70 seats wtf the biggest winner is libdems never seen that coming | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find. "Lol | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find. "Pretty sure they get a better deal in Germany. Don’t worry if France moves to the right they may leave Schengen and tighten their borders. | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. FPTP sucks Sinn Fein on 7 seats with 0.7% of the vote. I know they don't take their seats. reform 14% and 4 seats Lib Dems 12% 70 seats wtf the biggest winner is libdems never seen that coming " I was an avid supporter of PR but overnight I have seen the light. FPTP is a wonder!!!! | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find. "If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively.. Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron.. Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform.. Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited.. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited.."They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform. I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes. Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime. "You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further. What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax. Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants."so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ? | |||
"It's a Tory collapse rather than a Labour landslide. Either way, a massive Labour majority. Fair play, a huge seat majority on just over a third of votes. That's how FPTP works for better or worse. FPTP sucks Sinn Fein on 7 seats with 0.7% of the vote. I know they don't take their seats. reform 14% and 4 seats Lib Dems 12% 70 seats wtf the biggest winner is libdems never seen that coming I was an avid supporter of PR but overnight I have seen the light. FPTP is a wonder!!!!" Hypocrite! lol. | |||
| |||
"John Major 1997 9,591,085 = Landslide defeat Keir Starmer 2024 9,686,329 = Landslide Vicory" fptp sucks, but there were more horses in this race. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants."
If the penny hasn't dropped that isolationism and small island thinking with some after the debacle of Brexit isn't the way to deal with global issues it possibly won't ever..
| |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?"Probably best to ask the asylum seekers that. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?"Because they want to. Basic human choice. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants."Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status? Include housing in that. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice."aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that. "Same as here. Until they are employed | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that. "Germany does, unsure about France. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing "Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France."Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Same as here. Until they are employed "Exactly the same amount in benefits? | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need."Did you just admit most are economic migrants?? | |||
" Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need." Fit young guys, yes. Looking for work? No. Employment rate of people who got asylum claim approved and have right to work is about 51% and their average number of hours worked and salary are both lower than the national average. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here. "Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month. A single person with a child €1690 per month. A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month. A couple with a child €2178 per month. Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany."That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. "Germany is around 21% cheaper to live in than the UK. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??"‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that. We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour. Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country.
Germany is around 21% cheaper to live in than the UK."So they don't 'pay more' but its cheaper there? Why didn't you just say that I the first place? | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn."We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that. If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available. "No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes. Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels. So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing."If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem. The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing.
If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem.
The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work.
"Bollox is it. You just don’t want foreigners coming here. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing.
If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem.
The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work.
Bollox is it. You just don’t want foreigners coming here."Next you'll be calling me racist 
Give your fucking head a wobble. We now want anyone to just rock up for work, invited or otherwise  | |||
| |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need."correct most of them are fit young lads and we know nothing about them lol wonder where all the women are then left back at home to rebuild there country maybe how come it’s mostly young men fleeing war and hunger ? | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing.
If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem.
The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work.
Bollox is it. You just don’t want foreigners coming here."why is it only you and another guy on here says foreigners? Does that make it sound like anyone against mass migration is racist pls don’t hold back speak your mind for once | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing.
If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem.
The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work.
Bollox is it. You just don’t want foreigners coming here.
Next you'll be calling me racist
Give your fucking head a wobble. We now want anyone to just rock up for work, invited or otherwise "Well if the cap fits…. And yes. The economy needs the boost. Because despite the Farage numpties, migrants are an economic boost. They like to focus on the exceptions who claim benefits and don’t work, but in the studies made pre-Brexit, migrants were a £30bn a year benefit to the exchequer. Bye bye now | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. "UC and Housing benefit is around £1000 so I think Germany is more attractive from a financial view. Especially with the water and heating and the fact it's 21% cheaper to live there. Mrs x | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.so if it’s not about money why risk there lives and there kids lives to get here pls one good answer will do ?
Because they want to. Basic human choice.aw great risk kids lives because they want to basic human choice smashing
Those bringing kids are a minority. Most are fit young guys looking for work. Luckily, that is exactly what we need.
Did you just admit most are economic migrants??
‘Admit’… odd choice of word. That insinuates a guilt or innocence. Most are economic migrants. That isn’t a shocking new revelation. Most come here for work because they speak the language. Literally no problem with that.
We need workers for the health, agriculture, building etc that the British unemployed were given a chance to fill and didn’t. Too slow. So we’re back to needing foreign labour.
Again nothing new or shocking there. We’ve done it for centuries. And yet there’s always a minority that start shouting about having foreigners here. Hey ho. They’ll never learn.
We're specifically talking about 'boat people' which we're constantly told are 'escaping war or persecution' ie. seeking asylum. Its constantly argued these people are most definitely not economic migrants. You're saying they are, but that you have no issue with that.
If they are economic migrants, then there are other routes available.
No there isn’t as most of them don’t have passports because a lot of countries restrict who they will issue passports to. So the illegal routes are the only routes.
Or if they go the official refugee route our last government sat on the process as long as possible. They thought dragging the process out as long as possible would put people of coming here which it didn’t. And we ended up with back logs and people put into hotels.
So basically as I said before, get them in quick, get them working, get them contributing.
If they don't have a passport that's their fucking problem.
The Refugee Convention is for people seeking asylum, not people who come here for work.
Bollox is it. You just don’t want foreigners coming here.
Next you'll be calling me racist
Give your fucking head a wobble. We now want anyone to just rock up for work, invited or otherwise
Well if the cap fits….
And yes. The economy needs the boost.
Because despite the Farage numpties, migrants are an economic boost. They like to focus on the exceptions who claim benefits and don’t work, but in the studies made pre-Brexit, migrants were a £30bn a year benefit to the exchequer. Bye bye now"You're just another leftie who's shouts racist when you can't win a debate
You've already been told that 'asylum seekers' are a net drain on the economy, you do know were speaking about 'asylum seekers' don't you?
This has been fucking hilarious | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. UC and Housing benefit is around £1000 so I think Germany is more attractive from a financial view. Especially with the water and heating and the fact it's 21% cheaper to live there.
Mrs x"I don't dispute Germany may be a more attractive place from a financial viewpoint. I was interested in the figures, which, despite to the posters claim, aren't actually higher in Germany. | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. UC and Housing benefit is around £1000 so I think Germany is more attractive from a financial view. Especially with the water and heating and the fact it's 21% cheaper to live there.
Mrs x
I don't dispute Germany may be a more attractive place from a financial viewpoint. I was interested in the figures, which, despite to the posters claim, aren't actually higher in Germany. "How much are they in Germany then? Mrs x | |||
"Labour is looking like to next government hope all who voted for them get what they was hoping for but I doubt it now the flood gates are open let’s see how many small boats come over it next month
Do you think the people trying desperately to get across the channel give a shit about who the PM is?
No, but those of us who resent paying for economic migrants who travel through a number of safe countries because they know they will get more from the British taxpayer than our European counterparts care. Now that Starmergeddon is about to roll out the red carpet and force all of us to pay for this virtue signalling, I suspect there will be wooping of joy over in war-torn Calais as all those single men of fighting age, sorry, poor downtrodden terrified refugees fleeing the blitz of the northern French coast as they line up to come to this first safe haven they find.
If you seriously believe Starmer isn't of a similar mindset to the centrists in the Tory party on that issue you've not been listening objectively..
Rwanda was a con, an expensive diversion to assuage the right of the Tories and it was never the solution but it tried to mask and deflect the failings of the results of austerity where the very essentials of the systems to deal with such things were slashed by Osborne and Cameron..
Starmer isn't Corbyn, and he's just been given a mandate based partly upon those seeing the failures of the Tories on the issue which have benefitted Reform..
Scrapping Rwanda is the only sensible way to try and sort what is a mess they've inherited..
They are both cheeks of the same arse, it’s why you have seen a mass movement of votes in 4 weeks to Reform.
I agree, Rwanda was a smokescreen. The real answer is stopping all payment, benefit and housing to illegal economic migrants and having a mechanism to log, record, and then returning those illegal migrants to French shores. This means pulling out of the ECHR and being prepapred to load landing craft to return them if that’s what it takes.
Do this for a short while and the pull factors of the UK will be less attractive and they will look elsewhere for the easiest location/best financial outcome/loosest enforcement regime.
You seem to be obsessed with Frances role regarding immigration. France is irrelevant. As soon as a the migrants declare their intended destination, whether there is one country or ten between them, then the destination is the only country that matters. That is basic UNHCR law. Which the UK has signed up to. Leaving ECHR won’t change anything but it will degrade our already shaken international standing even further.
What we should be doing is facilitating their arrival and get them working, building, staffing and contributing tax.
Also if it was just about money, both France and Germany pay more than we do to immigrants.
Do France and Germany continue to pay them more after gaining refugee status?
Include housing in that.
Germany does, unsure about France.
Can you show Germany figures? The other poster same it's the same as here.
Single refugees are entitled to €954 per month.
A single person with a child €1690 per month.
A couple is entitled to total of €1528 per month.
A couple with a child €2178 per month.
Increased payments are made if housing costs are high in a particular area. Water and heating are included in ‘warm rent’ in Germany.
That doesn't look like more on the face of it, I suppose factoring in water and heating makes it about even, but I do live in an expensive part of the country. UC and Housing benefit is around £1000 so I think Germany is more attractive from a financial view. Especially with the water and heating and the fact it's 21% cheaper to live there.
Mrs x
I don't dispute Germany may be a more attractive place from a financial viewpoint. I was interested in the figures, which, despite to the posters claim, aren't actually higher in Germany. How much are they in Germany then?
Mrs x
"The poster above wrote the figures. | |||
| |||
"Hilarious ….! Amazing how people still clutch at the straws offered by a totally discredited regime-more people have come in since we ‘Took back control’ than anything like before… The present labour party are actually grown up and able to work with european border agencies to actually do something -instead of just throwing bundles of cash at everything thinking it will work…! " Labour should reduce illegal immigration. Simply remove the biggest recruitment driver for Reform and the Tories. As soon as they can't blame foreigners for everything, what's left? A big bag of fuck all. | |||
| |||
