Current Affairs

[barney]

The U.K. accepts about 75% of asylum applications.
Denmark rejects about 70%
Surely we must be asking different questions.

[towny44]

The U.K. accepts about 75% of asylum applications.
Denmark rejects about 70%
Surely we must be asking different questions.

Where do Denmarks 70% rejects end up?

[barney]

In Denmark if it’s anything like here

[Kendhni]

But we all know it is pointless to throw money at trying to prevent illegal crossings of the channel,

I agree, the government has tried throwing money at it for the past 3-4 years and they have not stemmed the flow.

unless there is the severe penalty of being sent staright back to follow the legal process of asylum, then the illegal crossings will continue.

We need to be clear what we are talking about here (and I am just as lazy with my terminology as others have been). There is immigration through lawful channels for multiple reasons and then there is a huge (and growing) refugee crisis resulting in many asylum seekers. By definition most of the refugees are unable to travel through normal lawful routes because they are unable to get visas.

Contrary to what I have often seen posted (including on this board) there is no rule in relation to claiming asylum in the first safe country ... the closest was the Dublin Regulation (which we have chosen not to be part of), and even that required certain conditions to be met (e.g. first country in which asylum is requested). Even Germany suspended the Dublin Regulations in 2015 due to disparity between countries bordering the Med vs those much further away.

All that is probably a long way of saying that we are therefore obliged to abide by the 1951 Refugee convention and other international laws. Once a person makes their way to a country, by whatever means they can, then we must first assume that they are genuine and the onus is on us to determine any fraudulent claims. That takes time and the UK asylum system is possibly more arduous than many others ... one problem with the UK is that asylum seekers are not allowed to seek work for a year ... and even then the UK includes conditions on what work is allowed ... other countries do not have such severe conditions. In addition, the benefits offered to asylum seekers that arrive in the UK is no more generous than many other countries.

Once 'processed' (I hate that word in connection to human beings) then, and only then, should a decision be taken as to what can be done. If that entails sending them to another country, or even their country of origin, then further agreements may be needed. The problem is that, currently, the likelihood is that the majority are genuine due to many current trouble spots in the world: Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan etc. Many will/do want to return home, but only when they feel it is safe to do so ... that is really what needs to be addressed, somehow making those countries safer (which is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future). Until then this is going to be a growing international problem.

[towny44]

So Keir Starmer's answer to help combat the high cost of energy, is to freeze gas and electric prices for 6 months. What a waste of money, there must be far more than 50% of the population who can afford to pay the extra cost so why not target the really needy and save at least 50%. Labour must have access to a more prolific money tree than the Tories.

[david63]

So Keir Starmer's answer to help combat the high cost of energy, is to freeze gas and electric prices for 6 months

Yes but you have to remember that it is all Boris's fault because he has gone off on holiday - unlike Sir Hindsight who is not on holiday - oh just a minute he has now come back off his holiday!!

[screwy]

Should have stayed away…W

[barney]

The majority of the current batch of illegal immigrants come from the war torn country of Albania.
We can probably all agree that Albania is a backwards craphole but hardly war torn and in need of refuge.

[Kendhni]

So Keir Starmer's answer to help combat the high cost of energy, is to freeze gas and electric prices for 6 months

Yes but you have to remember that it is all Boris's fault because he has gone off on holiday - unlike Sir Hindsight who is not on holiday - oh just a minute he has now come back off his holiday!!

There is a huge difference between the leader of the opposition not being present and the supposed PM and his chancellor (although Johnson going missing at a time of crisis is hardly news) ... yet again he shows his true colours, no interest in the electorate, the country or his party ... just himself ... I really hope we are not still paying that clown a PM salary .

Besides that at least Labour and the Lib Dems have come up with ideas (albeit weak and predictable) ... the entire tory government have come up with diddly squat since the start of this crisis. Worse still it looks like Betty 'U-turn' Truss's only idea is to spend/bribe her way out of the economic shambles the Johnson government is leaving behind ... shake that tory magic money tree even harder

[Kendhni]

I was just reading a story with the headline that a nuclear war would kill about 5 billion people around the world ... you have to ask would they be the lucky ones, or would the 3 billion survivors be the lucky ones?

[towny44]

So Keir Starmer's answer to help combat the high cost of energy, is to freeze gas and electric prices for 6 months

Yes but you have to remember that it is all Boris's fault because he has gone off on holiday - unlike Sir Hindsight who is not on holiday - oh just a minute he has now come back off his holiday!!

There is a huge difference between the leader of the opposition not being present and the supposed PM and his chancellor (although Johnson going missing at a time of crisis is hardly news) ... yet again he shows his true colours, no interest in the electorate, the country or his party ... just himself ... I really hope we are not still paying that clown a PM salary .

Besides that at least Labour and the Lib Dems have come up with ideas (albeit weak and predictable) ... the entire tory government have come up with diddly squat since the start of this crisis. Worse still it looks like Betty 'U-turn' Truss's only idea is to spend/bribe her way out of the economic shambles the Johnson government is leaving behind ... shake that tory magic money tree even harder

I am not sure whether a NI voter should have the right to criticise any UK govt since they don't really elect any true UK representatives. Athough in the past Unionists have tended to suppirt the Tories, and one or two of the left wing parties have supported Labour, Sinn Fein have never taken their seats in Westminster. If their representatives are not prepared to fully show their allegience or opposition to the UK govt, should we really be letting them have any say at Westminster.
Surely the devolved govts of the 3 junior nations is the forum for their national discussions. Maybe we should only permit UK wide parties to take part in the general elections?

[barney]

Yes but you have to remember that it is all Boris's fault because he has gone off on holiday - unlike Sir Hindsight who is not on holiday - oh just a minute he has now come back off his holiday!!

There is a huge difference between the leader of the opposition not being present and the supposed PM and his chancellor (although Johnson going missing at a time of crisis is hardly news) ... yet again he shows his true colours, no interest in the electorate, the country or his party ... just himself ... I really hope we are not still paying that clown a PM salary .

Besides that at least Labour and the Lib Dems have come up with ideas (albeit weak and predictable) ... the entire tory government have come up with diddly squat since the start of this crisis. Worse still it looks like Betty 'U-turn' Truss's only idea is to spend/bribe her way out of the economic shambles the Johnson government is leaving behind ... shake that tory magic money tree even harder

I am not sure whether a NI voter should have the right to criticise any UK govt since they don't really elect any true UK representatives. Athough in the past Unionists have tended to suppirt the Tories, and one or two of the left wing parties have supported Labour, Sinn Fein have never taken their seats in Westminster. If their representatives are not prepared to fully show their allegience or opposition to the UK govt, should we really be letting them have any say at Westminster.
Surely the devolved govts of the 3 junior nations is the forum for their national discussions. Maybe we should only permit UK wide parties to take part in the general elections?

Better to have a devolved English Parliament dealing solely with English issues.
Given that the English usually end up picking the bill up for the feckless devolved governments, I think that’s only fair.

[Kendhni]

Yes but you have to remember that it is all Boris's fault because he has gone off on holiday - unlike Sir Hindsight who is not on holiday - oh just a minute he has now come back off his holiday!!

There is a huge difference between the leader of the opposition not being present and the supposed PM and his chancellor (although Johnson going missing at a time of crisis is hardly news) ... yet again he shows his true colours, no interest in the electorate, the country or his party ... just himself ... I really hope we are not still paying that clown a PM salary .

Besides that at least Labour and the Lib Dems have come up with ideas (albeit weak and predictable) ... the entire tory government have come up with diddly squat since the start of this crisis. Worse still it looks like Betty 'U-turn' Truss's only idea is to spend/bribe her way out of the economic shambles the Johnson government is leaving behind ... shake that tory magic money tree even harder

I am not sure whether a NI voter should have the right to criticise any UK govt since they don't really elect any true UK representatives. Athough in the past Unionists have tended to suppirt the Tories, and one or two of the left wing parties have supported Labour, Sinn Fein have never taken their seats in Westminster. If their representatives are not prepared to fully show their allegience or opposition to the UK govt, should we really be letting them have any say at Westminster.
Surely the devolved govts of the 3 junior nations is the forum for their national discussions. Maybe we should only permit UK wide parties to take part in the general elections?

Fortunately democratic reality of the UK does not take such a myopic separatist view.

[towny44]

There is a huge difference between the leader of the opposition not being present and the supposed PM and his chancellor (although Johnson going missing at a time of crisis is hardly news) ... yet again he shows his true colours, no interest in the electorate, the country or his party ... just himself ... I really hope we are not still paying that clown a PM salary .

Besides that at least Labour and the Lib Dems have come up with ideas (albeit weak and predictable) ... the entire tory government have come up with diddly squat since the start of this crisis. Worse still it looks like Betty 'U-turn' Truss's only idea is to spend/bribe her way out of the economic shambles the Johnson government is leaving behind ... shake that tory magic money tree even harder

I am not sure whether a NI voter should have the right to criticise any UK govt since they don't really elect any true UK representatives. Athough in the past Unionists have tended to suppirt the Tories, and one or two of the left wing parties have supported Labour, Sinn Fein have never taken their seats in Westminster. If their representatives are not prepared to fully show their allegience or opposition to the UK govt, should we really be letting them have any say at Westminster.
Surely the devolved govts of the 3 junior nations is the forum for their national discussions. Maybe we should only permit UK wide parties to take part in the general elections?

Fortunately democratic reality of the UK does not take such a myopic separatist view.

And there was I thinking that it was the nationalist aspirations of the junior nattions that was leading the separatist agenda, if you really wanted to remain united you would welcome the cause of only UK wide representation at Westminster and leave local politics to the devolved assemblies.

[barney]

In my opinion, the damage is already done and the United Kingdom is irreversibly damaged.
Personally, I’d like to see an independent Scotland and a united Ireland.
Until they get their way democratically, they will be banging on forever.
It’s put up or shut up time.
England and Wales will be fine on our own.

[Kendhni]

I am not sure whether a NI voter should have the right to criticise any UK govt since they don't really elect any true UK representatives. Athough in the past Unionists have tended to suppirt the Tories, and one or two of the left wing parties have supported Labour, Sinn Fein have never taken their seats in Westminster. If their representatives are not prepared to fully show their allegience or opposition to the UK govt, should we really be letting them have any say at Westminster.
Surely the devolved govts of the 3 junior nations is the forum for their national discussions. Maybe we should only permit UK wide parties to take part in the general elections?

Fortunately democratic reality of the UK does not take such a myopic separatist view.

And there was I thinking that it was the nationalist aspirations of the junior nattions that was leading the separatist agenda, if you really wanted to remain united you would welcome the cause of only UK wide representation at Westminster and leave local politics to the devolved assemblies.

I get the feeling you are not properly explaining what you mean ... I am not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

You are correct the original view you put forward was based on the separatist argument put forward by nationalism. I think what you are saying is, for a unionist view, to leave local issues to local representation which is exactly what happens today ... whether that be devolved government, county councils, town councils, parish councils etc. ... ultimately all being answerable to Westminister (in some form or another).

In addition though all members of the (now very delicate) union currently have representation in Westminister. Truss has said that she will strengthen the union but I think the last few years have left it in tatters. I think it is only a matter of time before Scotland, Northern Ireland and eventually Wales will leave the union ... maybe then London independence will gain traction and form its own city-state meaning it will no longer have to subsidise rest of England. Who knows?

[towny44]

Fortunately democratic reality of the UK does not take such a myopic separatist view.

And there was I thinking that it was the nationalist aspirations of the junior nattions that was leading the separatist agenda, if you really wanted to remain united you would welcome the cause of only UK wide representation at Westminster and leave local politics to the devolved assemblies.

I get the feeling you are not properly explaining what you mean ... I am not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

You are correct the original view you put forward was based on the separatist argument put forward by nationalism. I think what you are saying is, for a unionist view, to leave local issues to local representation which is exactly what happens today ... whether that be devolved government, county councils, town councils, parish councils etc. ... ultimately all being answerable to Westminister (in some form or another).

In addition though all members of the (now very delicate) union currently have representation in Westminister. Truss has said that she will strengthen the union but I think the last few years have left it in tatters. I think it is only a matter of time before Scotland, Northern Ireland and eventually Wales will leave the union ... maybe then London independence will gain traction and form its own city-state meaning it will no longer have to subsidise rest of England. Who knows?

What I was wanting discussed was "Should Nationalist parties continue to be allowed to have Westminster MPs". The SNP quite naturally have a very specific Scotland based agenda, and by their very nature the SNP has only Scottish centric view of politics. However if only UK wide parties were allowed to take part in general elections, they would need to form alliances with UK parties or MPs to press for their Scottish issues to be discussed at Westminster, aply this UK wide and this should lead to a much more cohesive UK based national agenda.

[barney]

The chances of Scottish independence is about 50/50
The chances of Ireland reunification is probably lower because Ireland probably couldn’t cope with it.
The chance of England breaking up is literally nil.

[screwy]

Oh I don’t know Barney.
Aren’t the. Cornish claiming to be separate,a bit like Bavaria.?

And don’t get me going on the Scousers.

[barney]

Oh I don’t know Barney.
Aren’t the. Cornish claiming to be separate,a bit like Bavaria.?

And don’t get me going on the Scousers.

That’s about ten people screwy.
The Cornish are a proud people as we all should be, but break away?
Nah !

[Kendhni]

And there was I thinking that it was the nationalist aspirations of the junior nattions that was leading the separatist agenda, if you really wanted to remain united you would welcome the cause of only UK wide representation at Westminster and leave local politics to the devolved assemblies.

I get the feeling you are not properly explaining what you mean ... I am not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

You are correct the original view you put forward was based on the separatist argument put forward by nationalism. I think what you are saying is, for a unionist view, to leave local issues to local representation which is exactly what happens today ... whether that be devolved government, county councils, town councils, parish councils etc. ... ultimately all being answerable to Westminister (in some form or another).

In addition though all members of the (now very delicate) union currently have representation in Westminister. Truss has said that she will strengthen the union but I think the last few years have left it in tatters. I think it is only a matter of time before Scotland, Northern Ireland and eventually Wales will leave the union ... maybe then London independence will gain traction and form its own city-state meaning it will no longer have to subsidise rest of England. Who knows?

What I was wanting discussed was "Should Nationalist parties continue to be allowed to have Westminster MPs". The SNP quite naturally have a very specific Scotland based agenda, and by their very nature the SNP has only Scottish centric view of politics. However if only UK wide parties were allowed to take part in general elections, they would need to form alliances with UK parties or MPs to press for their Scottish issues to be discussed at Westminster, aply this UK wide and this should lead to a much more cohesive UK based national agenda.

I get it now. I actually flip and flop on this one. In such circumstances, what you find is that those who know/assume they will have the lions share of votes would be for it; while those that don't, know they will not get valid representation. Now, if the actual situation was that it was one region 1 vote ... then each region would be on the same footing but those in the biggest region would be up in arms ... so it just wouldn't work.

What has been done is the system we have ... anybody is allowed to stand and represent their constituency ... if the large UK parties want to stand in all constituencies they are perfectly entitled to, and have done so in the past (often to their cost and embarrassment). So we already have a situation were regional parties align themselves to those that they believe closest represent what they stand for ... and everyone can feel they get some level of representation. This has been reinforced by devolving some powers to local government in different regions ... right down to council level. As the years go on it is likely that more and more powers will be devolved and Westminister will become less and less relevant to those regions.

The thing about politics is that it is not about what is achieved, but instead about what is perceived to have been achieved.

[Ray B]

If you are going to get more devolved powers then it should come with the money. I do not believe every county get it's fair share, in favor of the big metropolitan areas.

[barney]

Due to the Barnett formula, the three smaller nations get disproportionately more than England.
Then within England, the metropolitan areas get more than the rural areas.
There is no equality.
I believe that Scotland get about £2,000 per person annually more than English people get.
That’s why they can subsidise things that you pay for in England.
It’s because we pick the tab up .
You’d never know that according to the Nationalists.
To them, we are the great devil.

[Kendhni]

If you are going to get more devolved powers then it should come with the money. I do not believe every county get it's fair share, in favor of the big metropolitan areas.

That has always been a problem ... and is not limited to the UK. The Barnett formula was introduced as a temporary measure but nobody has come up with anything better (I believe Barnett himself called it a mistake, because he felt more money should be given to areas in need). It works out a calculation based on how much is being spent across England and provides a proportionate increase/decrease to budgets in the regions. I have often heard Londoners complain about it, since they feel that not only do they end up subsidising the rest of England but also the regions.

You are correct though to devolve additional powers will generally require additional money which is basically funding the duplication of work already being done in Westminister.

[barney]

London has the highest spending per person by quite a long mark.
About five grand more than the rural regions.