Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed" Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs " Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ??  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? "it was only the second reading. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-second-reading/ Everything passes the second reading pretty much. Especially with a huge majority in the HoC. Now it gets proper scrutiny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? "Basically, some Tories will hold the PM to ransom. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? "That is (almost) exactly what they do in the House of Commons. The Speaker says "All those in favour say Aye", and listens to the response. Then he says "Those against?", and waits for people to say "no". If it's obvious, he declares a winner. If the amount of noise is about the same, he calls for division and the MPs all have to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ??
That is (almost) exactly what they do in the House of Commons. The Speaker says "All those in favour say Aye", and listens to the response. Then he says "Those against?", and waits for people to say "no". If it's obvious, he declares a winner. If the amount of noise is about the same, he calls for division and the MPs all have to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted."Except the tellers had tallied the numbers prior to the ayes and nays. I guess that part is purely ritualistic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will it define Sunak's leadership or "resign" it? Voting currently taking place." Will have bo effect. Sunaks terms was uo as soon as an election happened.his policies aren't Conservative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? ""That is (almost) exactly what they do in the House of Commons. The Speaker says "All those in favour say Aye", and listens to the response. Then he says "Those against?", and waits for people to say "no". If it's obvious, he declares a winner. If the amount of noise is about the same, he calls for division and the MPs all have to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted." "Except the tellers had tallied the numbers prior to the ayes and nays. I guess that part is purely ritualistic." I'm not sure where you get that idea. Maybe the news station you watch did some judicious editing. If a division is called, it usually takes about 20 minutes for all the MPs to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted. The results are then announced once the Speaker is re-seated. That's certainly what happened today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ??
That is (almost) exactly what they do in the House of Commons. The Speaker says "All those in favour say Aye", and listens to the response. Then he says "Those against?", and waits for people to say "no". If it's obvious, he declares a winner. If the amount of noise is about the same, he calls for division and the MPs all have to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted.
Except the tellers had tallied the numbers prior to the ayes and nays. I guess that part is purely ritualistic.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Maybe the news station you watch did some judicious editing. If a division is called, it usually takes about 20 minutes for all the MPs to shuffle through the lobbies and be counted. The results are then announced once the Speaker is re-seated. That's certainly what happened today."I watched it live. There were four tellers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers." There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? it was only the second reading.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-second-reading/
Everything passes the second reading pretty much. Especially with a huge majority in the HoC.
Now it gets proper scrutiny.
"Exactly… this is going to be where the amendments to the bill are going to be proposed and voted on… for example, making it so uk courts can’t intervene on decisions, making it so they can skirt potential human rights complaints ect ect Remember that jenrick and braverman did go because of the policy itself… they went because they believe the policy and the bill don’t go far enough! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"MPs are voting to give a voice to their constituents. " This hasn't happened in my lifetime. " Abstaining or not turning up shouldn't be allowed " Although I do agree with this. Unless abstaining is in some way a valid option? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting times, elected Goverment takes on judges. I fully get the checks and balances needed, but the judges seem to have lost touch with citizens of the UK and their views and wishes expressed through the goverment. " The judges are supposed to be in touch with the law rather than public opinion. " First and foremost, UK judges should ensure laws and decisions are made to protect the citizens of the UK, and act as a deterrent to others, and not to protect illegal immigrants who have no legal reason to enter the UK. " Judges don't make the legislation. That's the governments job. A world where judges don't bother with the law and go with what they percieve the average Daily Mail reader wants them to do, doesn't sound great to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting times, elected Goverment takes on judges. I fully get the checks and balances needed, but the judges seem to have lost touch with citizens of the UK and their views and wishes expressed through the goverment. First and foremost, UK judges should ensure laws and decisions are made to protect the citizens of the UK, and act as a deterrent to others, and not to protect illegal immigrants who have no legal reason to enter the UK. " Heck no. That is completely not the point of a Judge, nor should it ever be. That's a completely ludicrous idea and undermines the judiciary. . The Police protect the public, because that's their job. The Armed Forces protect the country, because that's their job. . The Judges interpret the law and mete out punishment and the severity thereof, or dismiss where appropriate. They are not their to be "friends" nor "enemies" of the people. They are there to rule on a case presented to them in line with the powers invested in them, mindful of existing case law, and prior case law where a case is not clear. . Judges "losing touch" with the citizens of the UK is a massive, sweeping statement that the likes of the Daily Mail et al trundle out when something offends their readership. Never once will the paper go in to the nuances of the decision. Because that's too complicated for their readership who prefer binary choices and live binary lives, all in a non-binary world. (Hmmm...I think I have identified their problem). Instead, they'll just blame the bête noire of the day, so the morning cornflake-splutterers have something to shake their fists at, and then feel better about themselves. . Just because a judge rules something I may not personally agree with doesn't mean the judge it wrong. Or they are my enemy. It means I didn't get my arse down to the court, sit in the trial, listen to all the evidence, and then make a decision. I did not Educate Myself. The Judge however, most certainly did, and ruled accordingly on it. My "opinion", or indeed the "papers" is just that. An opinion. Don't like the way the judge rules ? Then change their sentencing guidelines and/or get a better lawyer who can present the case more convincingly with your desired outcome in mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Special mention must go to Graham Stuart , Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness , Minister of State for Climate Representing UK at COP28 Flew back to vote from Dubai But don't worry if you think that leaves the UK without a voice at the table discussing the serious climate change threat to The Planet He is flying straight back " 
This "archaic" system should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
FFS, he could have used a "proxy" and called someone on the blower to vote for him. Not burned tons of CO2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers. There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced." No, the speakers call happened after she'd been informed the results and after she announced the results. How can I see a replay when I watched it live?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers." "There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced." "No, the speakers call happened after she'd been informed the results and after she announced the results. How can I see a replay when I watched it live?" Were you watching the Parliament Channel, or were you watching some other channel's coverage of it? The vote isn't up in the archives at the moment, so there's no way to check what was broadcast. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers. There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced. No, the speakers call happened after she'd been informed the results and after she announced the results. How can I see a replay when I watched it live? Were you watching the Parliament Channel, or were you watching some other channel's coverage of it? The vote isn't up in the archives at the moment, so there's no way to check what was broadcast." Sky. It was still live! Once the first two tellers were in front of the speaker, the camera was locked on. There was no switching back to the studio. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers." "There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced." "No, the speakers call happened after she'd been informed the results and after she announced the results. How can I see a replay when I watched it live?" "Were you watching the Parliament Channel, or were you watching some other channel's coverage of it?" "Sky. It was still live! Once the first two tellers were in front of the speaker, the camera was locked on. There was no switching back to the studio." It would be interesting to hear if anyone else was watching it live, and what they saw happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting times, elected Goverment takes on judges. I fully get the checks and balances needed, but the judges seem to have lost touch with citizens of the UK and their views and wishes expressed through the goverment. First and foremost, UK judges should ensure laws and decisions are made to protect the citizens of the UK, and act as a deterrent to others, and not to protect illegal immigrants who have no legal reason to enter the UK. " Agree with this. We see far too much legislation blocked by judges on obscure points of law. They are unelected, and paid to administer justice on behalf of citizens. Their dabbling usually just makes things worse as we see with the Bibby Stockholm and Rwanda fiascos. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched it live. There were four tellers. There usually are 4 tellers. You may have seen a replay of the Speaker's call, played just before the results were announced. I can't think of any other way you could think that the call for ayes and nos happened just before the results were announced. No, the speakers call happened after she'd been informed the results and after she announced the results. How can I see a replay when I watched it live? Were you watching the Parliament Channel, or were you watching some other channel's coverage of it? Sky. It was still live! Once the first two tellers were in front of the speaker, the camera was locked on. There was no switching back to the studio. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else was watching it live, and what they saw happen." I watched live on BBC Parliament from around 19:15. When I tuned in, MPs were already out. When they re-entered, the 4 tellers took formation and read out the ayes and nos. As soon as that was done, the speaker confirmed and then MPs went out again to vote on timetable, same happened when they returned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What we have here is the government pinning its colours to a morally dubious policy of sending migrants to Rwanda in the vague hope it will act as a deterrent. The fact that they were previously defeated by the Supreme Court mans that in desperation they are now saying we don’t like your legal rulings on this so we are now make it legally binding that you must ignore international law and conventions and accept our view that Rwanda is a “safe country” That’s the equivalent of legislating to say that now Cats are Dogs. This is exactly the pattern of behaviour that authoritarian regimes adopt. This bill even if it passes the House of Lords and the 3rd reading will not actually act as a deterrent as it fails to tackle the real problem of human trafficking by criminal gangs. It is really a poor reflection on our society and attitudes that we treat migrants with such hostility. Who have often given up everything to travel here, often coerced by the human smugglers to undertake the perilous channel crossing as part of their business model. More compassion is actually what is required not hostile attitude. The obsession with this and the obscene amount of tax payer money that has been spent on this flawed policy would have been better served tackling the smuggling gangs and education programs in the migrant home countries to counter the smuggling gangs propaganda. " Eloquently put!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just the government wasting taxpayers money again , " Aside of legal and humanitarian issues Rwanda has capacity 500 On a 1 for 1 reciprocal scheme, we send one, they return one. No bottom line difference. For which UK pays. Rwanda pays zero Cost for first 200 deportees 125 million… 290 million…. 400 million….. Home office has 215,500 unprocessed asylum cases (138k at first stage, 5.1k appeal, 41.2K return) 500 deportees to Rwanda maximum, 99.75% stay. To claim the scheme is a deterrent is laughable That 500 is 0.25% of current cases Add £22million on Bibby legionella prison barge Funeral costs and inquiry for yesterdays reported suicide £10m a day accommodation Home office staff, lawyers, appeals, courts, supreme courts, barristers, more parliament bills, challenges and costs Must be a billion at least by now, we will all have to cough up more taxes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the hotel bill to house these folk is 8 million a day. i understand weve sent rowanda 250 million. the boat cost millions. it hasnt solved anything so far, its doubted that the million that have arrived have ever been vaccinated against anything ever so viruses are spreading.. yet i hear our nhs workers , public service workers , elderley people etc etc are using food banks and cant afford there rent/bills/cost of living etc etc. nhs is on the floor, waiting lists for operations years. somethings not quite right, just the legal fees are 2 million it just said on the news. if the government are running a business , which running the country is , we are 3 trillion in debt apparrentlty.. who's paying ? i'm going to guess us..." If the cost commitment by 2026 of the Rwanda scheme as james cleverly stated is £400,000,000 that is £2,000,000 a head The average working person in uk earns £1,000,000 in their lifetime It would be cheaper for the taxpayer, for all immigrants to be allowed to stay, on benefits, build them a house, and save £1,000,000 a head over a lifetime. The house is an investment for future generations We cannot send 215,500 to Rwanda, but if that was possible it would cost over £430 billion based on these government provided/leaked figures. The current years nhs budget is £168.8 bn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Majority of 44 Passed Ish….. Maths time… 313 voted for….. total amount of Tory mps ..350 The far right of his party.. the ERG faction.. abstained.. according to Francois that is about 40 ish…. They have said if the bill is not hardened a lot, they will vote against at next reading Basically if Tory MPs vote against rather than abstain they can afford to lose 29….. So this is more “kick can down road”…. The problem is going to be that the more extreme the legislation is… it will gain votes on the right, lose the moderate Tory MPs Talk about making something unnecessarily complicated. Forgive my ignorance. But all those in favour say I. The I's have it, passed. Simple ?? "The beers were lined up in the house bars for the rush after the pat on the back vote.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda has capacity 500" Where did you get that figure from? "On a 1 for 1 reciprocal scheme, we send one, they return one. No bottom line difference." What gives you the idea that it's one in, one out? "If the cost commitment by 2026 of the Rwanda scheme as james cleverly stated is £400,000,000 that is £2,000,000 a head" I thought you said that the limit was 500. That would work out to £800,000 per head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be interesting to hear if anyone else was watching it live, and what they saw happen." "I watched live on BBC Parliament from around 19:15. When I tuned in, MPs were already out. When they re-entered, the 4 tellers took formation and read out the ayes and nos. As soon as that was done, the speaker confirmed and then MPs went out again to vote on timetable, same happened when they returned. " I've just watched the footage, and that's what happened. The Speaker called the question at 18:58, and then called a division. At 19:28, the results were read out. The Speaker then asked for opinions on 'the programme motion', which is the parliamentary timetable, and another division was called. It's at https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/26b0dd30-b987-4d9c-8a2b-a6e6915e6019 if anyone wants to watch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be interesting to hear if anyone else was watching it live, and what they saw happen. I watched live on BBC Parliament from around 19:15. When I tuned in, MPs were already out. When they re-entered, the 4 tellers took formation and read out the ayes and nos. As soon as that was done, the speaker confirmed and then MPs went out again to vote on timetable, same happened when they returned. I've just watched the footage, and that's what happened. The Speaker called the question at 18:58, and then called a division. At 19:28, the results were read out. The Speaker then asked for opinions on 'the programme motion', which is the parliamentary timetable, and another division was called. It's at https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/26b0dd30-b987-4d9c-8a2b-a6e6915e6019 if anyone wants to watch. " I've seen it once. That's enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda has capacity 500 Where did you get that figure from? On a 1 for 1 reciprocal scheme, we send one, they return one. No bottom line difference. What gives you the idea that it's one in, one out? If the cost commitment by 2026 of the Rwanda scheme as james cleverly stated is £400,000,000 that is £2,000,000 a head I thought you said that the limit was 500. That would work out to £800,000 per head." KC briefing notes says 500 a year capacity - he says max of 5% that arrive will go, if any He says cost to date 290M with commited costs to 2026 (same as cleverly) 400m That is for the first 200 deportees, if any go there, that’s £2m a head All of this is a moving target. The info at best unreliable. Another Tory policy turd. See it when it happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KC briefing notes says 500 a year capacity" Oh, so now it's 500 per year, not 500 in total. Who is KC? "he says max of 5% that arrive will go" But at the current rate there will be 30,000 crossings this year, so 5% will be 1,500 people. Are you sure your source can do maths? "He says cost to date 290M with commited costs to 2026 (same as cleverly) 400m" Oh, so the £400m covers the next 3 years. That's 1,500 people at 500 per year, or 4,500 at 5% per year. That gives slightly more reasonable figures of £266,000 per head, or £88,000 per head. "That is for the first 200 deportees, if any go there, that’s £2m a head" Why are you limiting it to the first 200, when your own figures say that the plan allows for lots more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KC briefing notes says 500 a year capacity Oh, so now it's 500 per year, not 500 in total. Who is KC? he says max of 5% that arrive will go But at the current rate there will be 30,000 crossings this year, so 5% will be 1,500 people. Are you sure your source can do maths? He says cost to date 290M with commited costs to 2026 (same as cleverly) 400m Oh, so the £400m covers the next 3 years. That's 1,500 people at 500 per year, or 4,500 at 5% per year. That gives slightly more reasonable figures of £266,000 per head, or £88,000 per head. That is for the first 200 deportees, if any go there, that’s £2m a head Why are you limiting it to the first 200, when your own figures say that the plan allows for lots more?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Counsel None of the figures are mine. If Rwanda can take 500 a year, and there are 215,500 on the home office system, that’s 431 years to deport all these people Add another 30k a year, best get an actuary to calculate this, and the costings. On the costings for 200 people, In the last few months the governments figure has trebled £125400M | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. " It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KC briefing notes says 500 a year capacity Oh, so now it's 500 per year, not 500 in total. Who is KC? he says max of 5% that arrive will go But at the current rate there will be 30,000 crossings this year, so 5% will be 1,500 people. Are you sure your source can do maths? He says cost to date 290M with commited costs to 2026 (same as cleverly) 400m Oh, so the £400m covers the next 3 years. That's 1,500 people at 500 per year, or 4,500 at 5% per year. That gives slightly more reasonable figures of £266,000 per head, or £88,000 per head. That is for the first 200 deportees, if any go there, that’s £2m a head Why are you limiting it to the first 200, when your own figures say that the plan allows for lots more?" "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Counsel" So these are barristers' notes of some sort. Where are you getting them from? "None of the figures are mine." But they are figures that you are using to criticise the Rwanda scheme, so it's down to you to explain why the maths doesn't work, or just to accept that they're wrong. "If Rwanda can take 500 a year, and there are 215,500 on the home office system, that’s 431 years to deport all these people" The Rwanda scheme only applies to those arriving in the UK after the date of the legislation. Those people already on the list aren't subject to it. Plus, the Rwanda scheme only applies to those that have arrived irregularly, not to all asylum seekers. "On the costings for 200 people, In the last few months the governments figure has trebled £125400M" Let's assume that you're right about the cost, why do you keep referring to 200 people, when your own figures say that it will be lots more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'." Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU?" Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. " Another Brexit gift then Bravermans plans (guardian 25may2023) suggested 3163 would be deported every month from January 2024. Water under the bridge now but where was she intending to send them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. " what may this basic policy look like? I can't imagine anything we like, being something France likes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. " My point was that when we were in the EU the situation was better. You said “partners” and I am pointing out that the UK decided we didn’t want to be “partners in the EU” “Members of our club work well together” “I don’t want to be in the club” “Ok that’s a shame bye” “Why aren’t you working well with me” “You left the club!” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. " How do you know the small boat problem would have been avoided. When the UK was in the EU illegal migrants cam hear hiding in the back of lorries etc. You can't stop a dream.. You can however re educate the people wanting to get hear and showing its nolonger the land of gold and honey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. How do you know the small boat problem would have been avoided. When the UK was in the EU illegal migrants cam hear hiding in the back of lorries etc. You can't stop a dream.. You can however re educate the people wanting to get hear and showing its nolonger the land of gold and honey. " I wanted the American dream, no matter they still kicked me on the plane back to blighty.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. How do you know the small boat problem would have been avoided. When the UK was in the EU illegal migrants cam hear hiding in the back of lorries etc. You can't stop a dream.. You can however re educate the people wanting to get hear and showing its nolonger the land of gold and honey. I wanted the American dream, no matter they still kicked me on the plane back to blighty. "I guess you could have tried again but as a person living in a rich society the cost did not out weight the benifit. Did you not try a holiday to the baharmars and then get a boat. If its still the dream! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add if the crossings are 30k a year, that will add sixty years (at 500 a year to Rwanda) to deport each additional year Added to the 431 years to clear the current asylum cases. Over ten years crossings at 30k, that’s 600 years, added to 431 years to clear the current cases We’re are now at 3023 This is an unsolvable problem. It certainly seems a task beyond the capabilities of our government to get this mess sorted out. Turning back the clock, some rudimentary co-operation between the UK and France would have nipped this in the bud. So much for being in the EU with our valued 'partners'. Sure you can provide the stats but hasn’t it got worse since the referendum and even worse since we actually left the EU? Well it certainly hasn't delivered the promised border controls, fair enough. Not yet at least. But aside from that, a basic policy of bilateral co-operation between UK and France would have avoided the dinghy crisis completely. How do you know the small boat problem would have been avoided. When the UK was in the EU illegal migrants cam hear hiding in the back of lorries etc. You can't stop a dream.. You can however re educate the people wanting to get hear and showing its nolonger the land of gold and honey. I wanted the American dream, no matter they still kicked me on the plane back to blighty. "tell them you're from Cuba. Without ID how would they know ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
