That's What You Call A Near Miss!
ChatterBank0 min ago
Suella Braverman Speech
she is spot on, but who is going to listen and make changes, seems politicans and lawmakers care nothing for the publics view, but only altruism or they are just scared.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. 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.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto said nothing about solving illegal immigration. But they made this pledge.
// The Conservatives will overhaul the current immigration system ‘to make it more fair and compassionate’ and introduce an Australian style points-based system ‘to control immigration’. Under this new system, they will prioritize those who have a good grasp of the English language, have been law abiding citizens in their own countries and have good education and qualifications. Like Australia, the Conservatives say that most people coming into the country will need a clear job offer. //
How's that panning out in reality ?
Conveniently ignoring the scale of the Conservative's failure.
Maybe start by reminding Suella that she's in charge and give her a wee push to get her started.
Not much point in her looking around for someone to blame when it's ultimately her responsibility.
I’ll try once more then. It’s fine to criticise the Conservative government’s failure – because they have failed and that is undeniable. But….what do you suggest is done?
Under the rules of the sea we cannot prevent these small boats from landing and we have an obligation to ensure the safety of those who get into difficulties in our waters – even though they have placed themselves in peril by embarking on such a dangerous journey). Under the current refugee Treaty (as amended in 1966 by the UN without reference to the signatories and as modified and “gold plated” by various courts since) virtually anybody who does not particularly like it where they are has the “right” to arrive here by unconventional means and lodge a claim for asylum. The gold-plating by the courts means that many will succeed because virtually any situation which makes migrants feel uncomfortable or unhappy in their homelands qualifies as “persecution”.
Unless they decide to unilaterally ignore both the Treaty and court rulings (which would produce howls of anguish from the usual quarters) the government is bound to comply with them. Mrs Braverman has highlighted that, in those circumstances, the UK government is compelled to act the way it has. They cannot physically prevent people landing and they have to be accommodated, fed and watered on arrival before their claims are lodged. She has also highlighted that the 1951 Treaty is totally unfit for purpose in today's world (where people who don't like the situation where they are see fit to simply up sticks and set off for pastures new).
So, Gromit and Douglas, what do you suggest is done?
To save you accusing me of the same attitude (i.e. the government has failed but we don’t know what to do either) here is my suggestions as a starter:
1. The government should withdraw as a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Treaty. It should do this on the basis that it is clearly being abused: it has been modified without consent; it was not designed to provide people with the opportunity to “start a better life”; and courts are interpreting its provisions too widely.
2. It should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (largely for the same reasons except that the Convention has not been modified without consent).
3. It should make it clear to the French government that small boats will be prevented from entering UK waters and will be turned back to return to France.
What do you think of those and if you disagree with them, have you any other suggestions?
Don't most opposition parties simply advocate making it easier for economic migrants to dump themselves on the UK officially, making border control worse and with no guarantee it'd stop any boats anyway ?
Yes we need to withdraw from any treaty/agreement/organisation which has clearly failed, pass the laws needed to negate past law/court interpretation that screws up our ability to act correctly in the present, and start returning illegals back to the country they just left rather than bring them here. If anyone has a desire to come here they can use the existing system to apply, and only come if their request is accepted.
But despite certain MPs making the right noises, nothing much progresses because government and parliament as a whole simply don't have the will or the gall to do what is needed. Until the public vote for a representative from a party willing to support the UK, rather than moan about it's problems and do nowt, then things won't change.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto said nothing about solving illegal immigration.
Then why mention that manifesto? Mrs Braverman’s speech (and hence this thread) is about those claiming asylum.
But repeated failure by a succession of Home Secretaries since, has resulted in 100,000 gaining entry.
But they will never succeed whilst the UK remains signatories to the two Treaties I have mentioned. The Conservative Party is the only major party which has considered withdrawing from them (though, like many ideas, considering it and doing it seem light years apart).
Douglas has withdrawn from the discussion, being willing only to criticise those in power, so perhaps we can continue. What do you think of my proposals? If you don’t like them, what alternatives do you have? One thing is for sure: without radical modifications to our international obligations, which will see the UK in control of who settles here and who does not, unauthorised landings and eventual settlement by tens of thousands of people annually will simply continue, whatever party is in power.
Judge I agree with your proposals and I applaud your attempts to reason with the naysayers. However I think you may be under the impression that they want a solution, they don't they just want to knobble and deride any suggestions for fixing the issue and then moan that the issue is not fixed. The 5C types and general naysayers just want to criticise they actually like what's happenning, it gives them s stick to beat the government with, that's all they really want.
