News1 min ago
Will Priti Useless Actually Do Something This Time?
86 Answers
No doubt more hot air from the Home Secretary who talks the talk but doesnt even crawl the crawl let alone walk the walk.
Either she gets her ass into gear immediately or she should go along with Johnson and Han cock.
Shame really I had really high hopes for "Hang 'em" Patel.
https:/
Either she gets her ass into gear immediately or she should go along with Johnson and Han cock.
Shame really I had really high hopes for "Hang 'em" Patel.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
O_G @ 08:31 Fri 07th Aug 2020 -- "And government may need to reconsider any multinational agreements signed up to, which presently prevents dealing with the situation properly. I don't know why our government is keeping illegals but there must be something tying their hands that they should be repealing."
Yes there is something "tying their hands"(and USA,France,...), it is one facet of the capitalist consumer trap... you want your consumer based economies to function and allow you to live with access to commodities, expectations and Standards of Living that kings did not even have in past times ? - then abrogate the integrity of your countries borders.
Blame can be passed around regarding repercussions of this abrogation of national responsibility, which is far far easier to put up with and ignore putting into practice the simple measures of remedying it, because the entire consumer driven global economy would falter and it would cost you dear reader more money for your purchases. ( assuming those purchases would even be still available)
Yes there is something "tying their hands"(and USA,France,...), it is one facet of the capitalist consumer trap... you want your consumer based economies to function and allow you to live with access to commodities, expectations and Standards of Living that kings did not even have in past times ? - then abrogate the integrity of your countries borders.
Blame can be passed around regarding repercussions of this abrogation of national responsibility, which is far far easier to put up with and ignore putting into practice the simple measures of remedying it, because the entire consumer driven global economy would falter and it would cost you dear reader more money for your purchases. ( assuming those purchases would even be still available)
//Blame can be passed around regarding repercussions of this abrogation of national responsibility, which is far far easier to put up with and ignore putting into practice the simple measures of remedying it, because the entire consumer driven global economy would falter and it would cost you dear reader more money for your purchases.//
Pray tell, how will stopping illegal economic migration such as described here cause the entire consumer driven global economy to falter?
Pray tell, how will stopping illegal economic migration such as described here cause the entire consumer driven global economy to falter?
//the economy thrives on cheap labour, that's why Primark is doing better than M&S. Keep immigrants out and the sturdy British workperson will have more leverage to drive wages up.//
It depends on what kind of economy you want. If you want a ow-skilled, low paid workforce then I would agree. The thing is, though, many jobs in the UK are not low skilled. There are plenty of people in the UK who won't work for various reasons and whether wages are driven up or down is of no concern to them. Primark do better than M&S because they sell what people want. M&S in the main don't.
//"the integrity of your countries borders" means checking everything that enters AND leaves your borders NJ, a simple endeavour but anathema to capitalist consumerism.//
Well it's not such a simple endeavour, as this thread amply demonstrates.
I seem to get the impression that you both believe that allowing unfettered illegal immigration is a deliberate government strategy aimed at providing huge amounts of low paid unskilled labour. If that's the case, why has it been going on for years (when those entitled to work here from the EU had free access) and why doesn't the government simply provide a legal route for these people to come here, register their interests and get a job in Primark?
It depends on what kind of economy you want. If you want a ow-skilled, low paid workforce then I would agree. The thing is, though, many jobs in the UK are not low skilled. There are plenty of people in the UK who won't work for various reasons and whether wages are driven up or down is of no concern to them. Primark do better than M&S because they sell what people want. M&S in the main don't.
//"the integrity of your countries borders" means checking everything that enters AND leaves your borders NJ, a simple endeavour but anathema to capitalist consumerism.//
Well it's not such a simple endeavour, as this thread amply demonstrates.
I seem to get the impression that you both believe that allowing unfettered illegal immigration is a deliberate government strategy aimed at providing huge amounts of low paid unskilled labour. If that's the case, why has it been going on for years (when those entitled to work here from the EU had free access) and why doesn't the government simply provide a legal route for these people to come here, register their interests and get a job in Primark?
Gulliver 13.10. My Dutch GP and his German wife and British/born little girl are indeed leaving to go to live in Germany. BUT, before you start crowing, his wife's parents are becoming infirm. They live in a Familienhaus (typically one for a family with the ground-floor arranged as a flat for a lodger or relative. The aged parents will live in the flat and my GP and family will take the house. That is why they are leaving - so DON'T assume that any departures are because of Brexit. He will be much missed.
"//the economy thrives on cheap labour, that's why Primark is doing better than M&S. Keep immigrants out and the sturdy British workperson will have more leverage to drive wages up.//
It depends on what kind of economy you want. If you want a ow-skilled, low paid workforce then I would agree. The thing is, though, many jobs in the UK are not low skilled. There are plenty of people in the UK who won't work for various reasons and whether wages are driven up or down is of no concern to them. Primark do better than M&S because they sell what people want. M&S in the main don't. "
The cheap labour is the labour that produces the cheap goods Primark sells, Primark manufactures nothing in the UK, Primark clothes are made in countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and China. Primark do well because its prices are low. Most of your answer to jno is a rambling non-sequitur.
NJ > "Well it's not such a simple endeavour, as this thread amply demonstrates."
This thread demonstrates nothing of the sort. Almost ZERO solutions are proffered previously in this thread.
I gave a simple solution but it seems too unpalatable for you even to acknowledge, which I will reiterate
\\"the integrity of your countries borders" means checking everything that enters AND leaves your borders NJ, a simple endeavour but anathema to capitalist consumerism. //
NJ > "I seem to get the impression that you both believe that allowing unfettered illegal immigration is a deliberate government strategy aimed at providing huge amounts of low paid unskilled labour... "
Well you get *totally* the wrong impression of what I believe, jno can speak for themself.
The solution is SIMPLE, but the resulting ramifications costly.
It depends on what kind of economy you want. If you want a ow-skilled, low paid workforce then I would agree. The thing is, though, many jobs in the UK are not low skilled. There are plenty of people in the UK who won't work for various reasons and whether wages are driven up or down is of no concern to them. Primark do better than M&S because they sell what people want. M&S in the main don't. "
The cheap labour is the labour that produces the cheap goods Primark sells, Primark manufactures nothing in the UK, Primark clothes are made in countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and China. Primark do well because its prices are low. Most of your answer to jno is a rambling non-sequitur.
NJ > "Well it's not such a simple endeavour, as this thread amply demonstrates."
This thread demonstrates nothing of the sort. Almost ZERO solutions are proffered previously in this thread.
I gave a simple solution but it seems too unpalatable for you even to acknowledge, which I will reiterate
\\"the integrity of your countries borders" means checking everything that enters AND leaves your borders NJ, a simple endeavour but anathema to capitalist consumerism. //
NJ > "I seem to get the impression that you both believe that allowing unfettered illegal immigration is a deliberate government strategy aimed at providing huge amounts of low paid unskilled labour... "
Well you get *totally* the wrong impression of what I believe, jno can speak for themself.
The solution is SIMPLE, but the resulting ramifications costly.
" The solution is SIMPLE "
EVERYthing that Legally exits OR enters any country gets rigorously checked as legitimate, countries that do not comply with this do NOT get traded with.
Known illegal routes for bypassing this - e.g. Mediterranean sea, English Channel, for 'migrants', known drug routes, etc - become the responsibility of the originating state.
IF the originating state is a 'failed state' then NATO,or the EU,or the UN or the state that is on the 'receiving end' can use their military or other power to remedy the problem.
"but the resulting ramifications costly."
A fully effective Customs system would cost more and would enormously delay current trading practices, and possibly endanger some casual cross border exchanges of perishables BUT these could be prioritised and so still be possible.
But it would slow down consumption of goods and also raise costs due to increased transport costs.
BUT the result of NOT trading with countries who did not institute rigorous export and import checks would likely be huge, as it is *highly* unlikely many, IF ANY, will enact these protocols,as consumer capitalism ( and a large amount of the current criminality globally ) depend on this to function.
EVERYthing that Legally exits OR enters any country gets rigorously checked as legitimate, countries that do not comply with this do NOT get traded with.
Known illegal routes for bypassing this - e.g. Mediterranean sea, English Channel, for 'migrants', known drug routes, etc - become the responsibility of the originating state.
IF the originating state is a 'failed state' then NATO,or the EU,or the UN or the state that is on the 'receiving end' can use their military or other power to remedy the problem.
"but the resulting ramifications costly."
A fully effective Customs system would cost more and would enormously delay current trading practices, and possibly endanger some casual cross border exchanges of perishables BUT these could be prioritised and so still be possible.
But it would slow down consumption of goods and also raise costs due to increased transport costs.
BUT the result of NOT trading with countries who did not institute rigorous export and import checks would likely be huge, as it is *highly* unlikely many, IF ANY, will enact these protocols,as consumer capitalism ( and a large amount of the current criminality globally ) depend on this to function.
I think we must be at cross purposes. How do you conflate the operation of a customs system to check goods arriving (which the UK has as far is required) with people crossing the Channel in rubber boats? Are you saying the UK should not trade with France because it is failing in its responsibility to prevent those people leaving their shores?
Sorry, I just don't understand what you're getting at and I'm in a complete muddle.
Sorry, I just don't understand what you're getting at and I'm in a complete muddle.
O-G > "Hmm cutting nose to spite face, and using sledgehammer to crack nuts, seem to come to mind."
Indeed justice, moral values and ethics are not cheap, eh O_G ? (in fact it could be downright uncomfortable!) - that is a major reason why the world is in the mess it is in... it was just too expensive to remedy, eh ?
I was not intending to perplex you NJ, I will attempt to clarify:
"people crossing the Channel in rubber boats" are the responsibility of the country whose territory they set out from, especially when these 'crossings' are common knowledge and appear to be being 'ignored' and no effective action implemented. And we should hold them responsible.
IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.)
Is there any chance of that happening ? probably not - and the reason being the financial cost is potentially much too damaging for us and to ALL the users in our consumer capitalist global order. { see my previous response @ 12:16 Sat 08th Aug 2020 }
France a fellow ally, NATO member and trading partner, with all the military and civil enforcement and intelligence personnel, all the technological facilities at its disposal cannot stop "people crossing the Channel in rubber boats" ???
Indeed justice, moral values and ethics are not cheap, eh O_G ? (in fact it could be downright uncomfortable!) - that is a major reason why the world is in the mess it is in... it was just too expensive to remedy, eh ?
I was not intending to perplex you NJ, I will attempt to clarify:
"people crossing the Channel in rubber boats" are the responsibility of the country whose territory they set out from, especially when these 'crossings' are common knowledge and appear to be being 'ignored' and no effective action implemented. And we should hold them responsible.
IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.)
Is there any chance of that happening ? probably not - and the reason being the financial cost is potentially much too damaging for us and to ALL the users in our consumer capitalist global order. { see my previous response @ 12:16 Sat 08th Aug 2020 }
France a fellow ally, NATO member and trading partner, with all the military and civil enforcement and intelligence personnel, all the technological facilities at its disposal cannot stop "people crossing the Channel in rubber boats" ???
//"people crossing the Channel in rubber boats" are the responsibility of the country whose territory they set out from, especially when these 'crossings' are common knowledge and appear to be being 'ignored' and no effective action implemented. And we should hold them responsible.//
I’m not so sure that is strictly true. Let’s reverse the situation and say that I set out from a beach near Dover in a small boat heading for France. I’m doing nothing contrary to UK law. The Coastguard may well (quite rightly) advise me against it but the UK has no right to prevent me setting off. People travel across the Channel, and indeed further afield in small private boats, all the time. They don’t have to register the equivalent of a “flight plan”. They just go. Of course when I reach France they may want to see my passport and may also want to inspect anything I might be carrying for customs purposes. But that is not the UK’s responsibility. The fact is the people arriving here are almost always in France illegally. But France chooses to ignore that and unless they are going to incarcerate them they can no more be held responsible for their travelling to the UK than they can be if they travelled to Belgium. If we don’t want people that arrive here in that way to land here the remedy lies with the UK to intercept the boats and return them to France. People that do make it should be returned forthwith. If we are party to treaties which prevent this we should simply give notice that our participation will come to an end.
//IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.)//
Why on Earth should we? The two things are disassociated. As well as that, many of the goods that pass through ports like Calais are not of French origin or destined for France at all, but are from and to places further afield. Are you suggesting we discontinue all that trade as well?
I think your solution is far from a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is a tin opener to open a packet of crisps.
I’m not so sure that is strictly true. Let’s reverse the situation and say that I set out from a beach near Dover in a small boat heading for France. I’m doing nothing contrary to UK law. The Coastguard may well (quite rightly) advise me against it but the UK has no right to prevent me setting off. People travel across the Channel, and indeed further afield in small private boats, all the time. They don’t have to register the equivalent of a “flight plan”. They just go. Of course when I reach France they may want to see my passport and may also want to inspect anything I might be carrying for customs purposes. But that is not the UK’s responsibility. The fact is the people arriving here are almost always in France illegally. But France chooses to ignore that and unless they are going to incarcerate them they can no more be held responsible for their travelling to the UK than they can be if they travelled to Belgium. If we don’t want people that arrive here in that way to land here the remedy lies with the UK to intercept the boats and return them to France. People that do make it should be returned forthwith. If we are party to treaties which prevent this we should simply give notice that our participation will come to an end.
//IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.)//
Why on Earth should we? The two things are disassociated. As well as that, many of the goods that pass through ports like Calais are not of French origin or destined for France at all, but are from and to places further afield. Are you suggesting we discontinue all that trade as well?
I think your solution is far from a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is a tin opener to open a packet of crisps.
NJ > "I’m not so sure that is strictly true..................."
There can be exceptions to many rules, in this case it is obviously perfectly evident IF they are French citizens holders, or tourists to France who have accidentally 'strayed' too far in their "rubber boats", in which case being returned to the country they strayed from would almost certainly be their preferred choice.
Indeed, that is not the UK’s responsibility and they should be returned to the country they strayed from.
Yes, they should be confined by the French authorities if they illegally there.
Yes, "If we don’t want people that arrive here in that way to land here the remedy lies with the UK to intercept the boats and return them to France." ( I have already stated similar ) They are in France and France has the responsibility for them.
"\\ IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.) \\
Why on Earth should we? The two things are disassociated."
No, they are intimately associated as I have explained previously.
NJ > "The fact is the people arriving here are almost always in France illegally. But France chooses to ignore that "
Yes and is not held RESPONSIBLE for that action and likely never will by your way of thinking.
NJ > "As well as that, many of the goods that pass through ports like Calais are not of French origin or destined for France at all, but are from and to places further afield. Are you suggesting we discontinue all that trade as well? "
No. If the goods are not French and not carried by French transport then that is fine.
There can be exceptions to many rules, in this case it is obviously perfectly evident IF they are French citizens holders, or tourists to France who have accidentally 'strayed' too far in their "rubber boats", in which case being returned to the country they strayed from would almost certainly be their preferred choice.
Indeed, that is not the UK’s responsibility and they should be returned to the country they strayed from.
Yes, they should be confined by the French authorities if they illegally there.
Yes, "If we don’t want people that arrive here in that way to land here the remedy lies with the UK to intercept the boats and return them to France." ( I have already stated similar ) They are in France and France has the responsibility for them.
"\\ IF we ceased trading with France over this specific "crossing the Channel in rubber boats" issue, I reckon the problem would swiftly be remedied. (ceasing to allowing all flights/boats/trains from France could be held in reserve.) \\
Why on Earth should we? The two things are disassociated."
No, they are intimately associated as I have explained previously.
NJ > "The fact is the people arriving here are almost always in France illegally. But France chooses to ignore that "
Yes and is not held RESPONSIBLE for that action and likely never will by your way of thinking.
NJ > "As well as that, many of the goods that pass through ports like Calais are not of French origin or destined for France at all, but are from and to places further afield. Are you suggesting we discontinue all that trade as well? "
No. If the goods are not French and not carried by French transport then that is fine.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.