FabSwingers.com mobile

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

The boats and Reform

Jump to newest
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk

People crossing the channel in small boats is not a new issue. It was happening when the conservatives were in power and it’s still happening now.

There are legalities that the UCHR binds us too, although some would argue that other countries who are also supposed to be bound by it, blatantly ignore it when it suits them and nothing seems to happen.

With the issue so high on the political agenda for many people in this country, so high that a party with hardly any other political agenda other than promising to tackle the issue, has risen from having very little support at the general election to topping opinion polls within a matter of months.

My question is this. With Labour being the only party that can actually do anything about it for the next 4 years or so, having seen the rise of reform, why are they not trying to steal their thunder? 4 years is a long time in politics but if nothing changes on the migration front during that time, Starmer and his cronies will all be out of a job and Fararge will be the next PM. Labour must see this so why are they being so complacent?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoBloomsMan
1 week ago

Springfield

I think it's very hard to find a long term solution without drastic changes to our international legal obligations, which Labour will never do. And even then would it work?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
1 week ago

dudley


"People crossing the channel in small boats is not a new issue. It was happening when the conservatives were in power and it’s still happening now.

There are legalities that the UCHR binds us too, although some would argue that other countries who are also supposed to be bound by it, blatantly ignore it when it suits them and nothing seems to happen.

With the issue so high on the political agenda for many people in this country, so high that a party with hardly any other political agenda other than promising to tackle the issue, has risen from having very little support at the general election to topping opinion polls within a matter of months.

My question is this. With Labour being the only party that can actually do anything about it for the next 4 years or so, having seen the rise of reform, why are they not trying to steal their thunder? 4 years is a long time in politics but if nothing changes on the migration front during that time, Starmer and his cronies will all be out of a job and Fararge will be the next PM. Labour must see this so why are they being so complacent? "

You do realise the Labour party politicians are crooks liers and they do what they are told.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ampantRalphMan
1 week ago

Rossendale

A simple solution would be to detain them in camps on arrival, and not give them benefits for breaking the law to get here! They are being massively incentivised to get to Britain and that is the biggest problem!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
1 week ago

nearby

The UN predict 1.2bn more migrants to enter Europe by 2070/80.

We’ve seen nothing yet and until the world works together on poverty, stopping wars and human rights abuses and tackles climate change this will continue.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
1 week ago

nearby


"A simple solution would be to detain them in camps on arrival, and not give them benefits for breaking the law to get here! They are being massively incentivised to get to Britain and that is the biggest problem! "

The small boats predominantly arrive across 370 miles of coast line. Ukraine is defending an 1100 mile border against a 200k Russian army.

Beggars believe small boats can’t be prevented from arriving.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bsolutely nutsMan
1 week ago

Dover


"A simple solution would be to detain them in camps on arrival, and not give them benefits for breaking the law to get here! They are being massively incentivised to get to Britain and that is the biggest problem!

The small boats predominantly arrive across 370 miles of coast line. Ukraine is defending an 1100 mile border against a 200k Russian army.

Beggars believe small boats can’t be prevented from arriving. "

Exactly how would you prevent it and what will it cost?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
1 week ago

Terra Firma


"A simple solution would be to detain them in camps on arrival, and not give them benefits for breaking the law to get here! They are being massively incentivised to get to Britain and that is the biggest problem!

The small boats predominantly arrive across 370 miles of coast line. Ukraine is defending an 1100 mile border against a 200k Russian army.

Beggars believe small boats can’t be prevented from arriving. "

The French prevented 26000 crossings in 2024.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
1 week ago

nearby

Sunak agreed £450million to the French for policing their borders, the failed Rwanda scheme cost £800million, at home reported accommodation costs £8million a day, 5000 empty hotel rooms booked by home office for an ‘influx’ at £600,000 a day (£219m a year).

Add the costs of border force, police, 1000 extra home office case workers, interpreters, lawyers, courts and judges, nhs, dental, food clothes and schooling.

Can’t we just send £10million a head to the migrants in France

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk

I think the first issue is the confusion of the 3 different types of people coming here.

1. The genuine “feeling persecution” asylum seeker.

Clare Rayner of course thinks they all fit in this category when very few probably do.

I am more than happy to help these people.

2. Those seeking a better life.

I have no doubt that a life in Britain with relatively honest police, accountable politicians (to some extent), clean running water, a virtually unlimited food supply, free at the point of access healthcare and education, a safety net benefits system to help those who can’t work etc. is better than a life in many of the countries that most of these people have come from.

But this has to be a two way street. There should be something in it for us as a nation. We are bringing all things I just listed to the party and many more. What are they bringing to the party? Is it something that benefits us? Something we are short of perhaps. Or are they bringing with them enough money so they are financially stable without state intervention?

If not then the answers should be a polite “no thank you”. Go home and learn a skill that we need and apply again. Western Europe and the UK in particular as it’s my home country, has no obligation to take people in, just because they want to come here. We have limited infrastructure such as housing, hospitals and schools, and we have no money according to the Chancellor so we can’t build more without increasing the deficit.

These people should be returned to their country of origin.

3. Economic migrants. I’ll use that term but you’ll have your own.

These are people who’ve heard about our generous nature. They have heard that all you have to do is get here and you get 12 months in a hotel while waiting for a decision, free food and clothes, free phones, driving lessons, medical treatment, glasses, dental work, sports activities, pocket money… and if you’re careful you can work for uber eats and deliveroo tax free on the free bike you get. And once you’re accepted you can get a free home, benefits while you look for that job that you’ll never get because you can’t speak a word of English. And you get to bring your family over to enjoy all the same benefits. And if you get turned down we will pay for the very best lawyers to dream up some bollocks that they know the courts will go along with and you can stay anyway.

I’m sorry but this is a no brainer for anyone. What they can get for just getting here is too great. The risk of dying in the channel is not a deterrent when the reward is so great.

We have no way of knowing if the Rwanda project would have worked as a deterrent because it never got a chance to try. All that money wasted and nothing to show for it. It had its flaws but it had its merits too.

But if you don’t give them somewhere to live and feed them of give them money, the crime rates will go through the roof.

So do we remove the reward? Physically stop them from getting here? Just send them straight back to their home country when they arrive? International law prohibits a couple of those.

The population is increasing by close to a million people a year. Those extra homes we are meant to be building will do nothing to stop the housing shortage, we’re technically building on green belt land and farmland house illegal migrants, not to fix the housing shortage.

We have to do something. The politicians will just never agree on what

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtystaffs60Couple
1 week ago

Staffordshire


"I think the first issue is the confusion of the 3 different types of people coming here.

1. The genuine “feeling persecution” asylum seeker.

Clare Rayner of course thinks they all fit in this category when very few probably do.

I am more than happy to help these people.

2. Those seeking a better life.

I have no doubt that a life in Britain with relatively honest police, accountable politicians (to some extent), clean running water, a virtually unlimited food supply, free at the point of access healthcare and education, a safety net benefits system to help those who can’t work etc. is better than a life in many of the countries that most of these people have come from.

But this has to be a two way street. There should be something in it for us as a nation. We are bringing all things I just listed to the party and many more. What are they bringing to the party? Is it something that benefits us? Something we are short of perhaps. Or are they bringing with them enough money so they are financially stable without state intervention?

If not then the answers should be a polite “no thank you”. Go home and learn a skill that we need and apply again. Western Europe and the UK in particular as it’s my home country, has no obligation to take people in, just because they want to come here. We have limited infrastructure such as housing, hospitals and schools, and we have no money according to the Chancellor so we can’t build more without increasing the deficit.

These people should be returned to their country of origin.

3. Economic migrants. I’ll use that term but you’ll have your own.

These are people who’ve heard about our generous nature. They have heard that all you have to do is get here and you get 12 months in a hotel while waiting for a decision, free food and clothes, free phones, driving lessons, medical treatment, glasses, dental work, sports activities, pocket money… and if you’re careful you can work for uber eats and deliveroo tax free on the free bike you get. And once you’re accepted you can get a free home, benefits while you look for that job that you’ll never get because you can’t speak a word of English. And you get to bring your family over to enjoy all the same benefits. And if you get turned down we will pay for the very best lawyers to dream up some bollocks that they know the courts will go along with and you can stay anyway.

I’m sorry but this is a no brainer for anyone. What they can get for just getting here is too great. The risk of dying in the channel is not a deterrent when the reward is so great.

We have no way of knowing if the Rwanda project would have worked as a deterrent because it never got a chance to try. All that money wasted and nothing to show for it. It had its flaws but it had its merits too.

But if you don’t give them somewhere to live and feed them of give them money, the crime rates will go through the roof.

So do we remove the reward? Physically stop them from getting here? Just send them straight back to their home country when they arrive? International law prohibits a couple of those.

The population is increasing by close to a million people a year. Those extra homes we are meant to be building will do nothing to stop the housing shortage, we’re technically building on green belt land and farmland house illegal migrants, not to fix the housing shortage.

We have to do something. The politicians will just never agree on what

"

Good considered post. I wish there was an ounce of common sense in the labour party over this issue but sadly their brains do not work like you or mine.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoBloomsMan
1 week ago

Springfield


"A simple solution would be to detain them in camps on arrival, and not give them benefits for breaking the law to get here! They are being massively incentivised to get to Britain and that is the biggest problem!

The small boats predominantly arrive across 370 miles of coast line. Ukraine is defending an 1100 mile border against a 200k Russian army.

Beggars believe small boats can’t be prevented from arriving. "

I think the Ukrainians tend to shoot any Russians who cross the border - I don't think even Nigel Farage is going that far !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aveman 77Man
1 week ago

Rotherham

Yes we have let it go on to long as said it could be slowed down or nearly stopped if any government had the balls and people stopped moaning about there rights and look at the longer bigger picture.also open up immigration offices abroad those who a true then yes help .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
1 week ago

London

Any solution for this would mean drastic changes in international frameworks like the UN refugees convention and the ECHR. These frameworks are simply not fit for the purpose. They have a lot of loopholes which is why UK and most of Europe are in this mess.

Ideally, moderate parties across different countries should work together to change those frameworks to give more sovereignty to the countries. Unfortunately, the moderate parties pretend like these conventions are religious text and it's a sin to question them.

They don't want to be the person that starts conversation about these conventions. Unfortunately, they don't realise that if they don't do this, AfD, Reform and other political parties will just take the countries out of these conventions entirely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi only OP   Couple
1 week ago

West Suffolk


"Any solution for this would mean drastic changes in international frameworks like the UN refugees convention and the ECHR. These frameworks are simply not fit for the purpose. They have a lot of loopholes which is why UK and most of Europe are in this mess.

Ideally, moderate parties across different countries should work together to change those frameworks to give more sovereignty to the countries. Unfortunately, the moderate parties pretend like these conventions are religious text and it's a sin to question them.

They don't want to be the person that starts conversation about these conventions. Unfortunately, they don't realise that if they don't do this, AfD, Reform and other political parties will just take the countries out of these conventions entirely."

Great post and I agree with much of what you said. Part of the problem for change is there’s not many centrist politicians about these days. It’s all far left and far right.

Coming out of the UCHR would leave a big hole when it comes to certain civil rights which we all want to enjoy. There would have to be some legislation put in place first or some of the protections we have from state officials detaining us and entering our home would cease to exist

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top