Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Add the cost of accommodation, free health care including all prescriptions and free education plus the cost of administration then the cost of bringing in asylum seekers becomes very expensive. 

Ah, so it's all down to cash, not any humanitarian considerations?  Let's sort out all the homegrown benefit cheats then who cost us a bloody sight more than asylum seekers do.  Or is it OK to rip off the state as long as you were born here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's a difference between not accepting the result and not agreeing with the result.  I accepted it would happen but that doesn't make me think it's the right thing to do.  The Brexiteers have been

Grammar.

I hope Brexit is everything that has been promised.  I am long enough in the tooth to realise that the people making those promises have made a career from telling lies without shame. The result

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

Ah, so it's all down to cash, not any humanitarian considerations?  Let's sort out all the homegrown benefit cheats then who cost us a bloody sight more than asylum seekers do.  Or is it OK to rip off the state as long as you were born here?

Absolutely not, we should be clamping down on them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, philpvfc said:

Absolutely not, we should be clamping down on them as well.

So do you think that the uk should not take in asylum seekers? It has no responsibility to take on a fair share? People keep arguing about what we shouldnt have or be doing. It would be quicker to just understand what you think we should do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Not what?  Terrorists?

Can I prove they are not terrorists?  

It looks like the terrorists have won with you.  They have you living in such fear that brown people from overseas are likely to be terrorists that you would rather let people die trying to reach the UK.  What a state to get yourself in.

no they have not, and no i'm not... 

my question was can you prove they are not, 

if you go back and read the thread, philpvfc wrote "did you not say we should welcome anybody with free movement"

you replied "so you are saying that they are terrorists"

philpvfc said "a small percentage are yes"

you replied "are they, how do you know this"

to which i questioned you "we are going round in circles, can you prove they are not"

???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

no they have not, and no i'm not... 

my question was can you prove they are not, 

if you go back and read the thread, philpvfc wrote "did you not say we should welcome anybody with free movement"

you replied "so you are saying that they are terrorists"

philpvfc said "a small percentage are yes"

you replied "are they, how do you know this"

to which i questioned you "we are going round in circles, can you prove they are not"

???

 

And I pointed out it is incumbent on the accuser to provide the proof.  Phil said a small percentage were terrorists.  He was asked how he knew this.  That is a perfectly reasonable question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

So in your initial post you were sure and now you are not sure? 

without trawling back, i think i said "it was said ", and you asked for a link i mentioned i thought it was sky news...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2020 at 14:52, Davebrad said:

i'm sure on one of the reports of migrants crossing the channel it said as soon as the migrants saw the uk border force boat coming, they threw their documents into the sea, as no documents is better than the wrong ones...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

he made a statement and i questioned it, as most on here do...

No I didn't, I asked questions, look at what you quoted just now, not a single statement made.  I think you are confusing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

So do you think that the uk should not take in asylum seekers? It has no responsibility to take on a fair share? People keep arguing about what we shouldnt have or be doing. It would be quicker to just understand what you think we should do.

I think the U.K. should have a proper process whereby we only accept applicants that have been made from the first safe country they arrive in and only accept applicants when they fly in to the country if they have proper documents and we return anyone coming in by boat back to where they came from and anyone flying in without documentation making it clear they will not be able to apply for asylum in the future. This will help to prevent those making the dangerous journey, it enables us to properly vet the genuine applications. To do this we MUST leave the Human Rights Act which dictates what we can do. So to answer your question I’m short, yes, I do think we should take asylum seekers in but under strict conditions and in limited numbers.

The EU have taken so many refugees in because of Merkels open invitation which she back tracked on shortly after. This is a problem made a lot worse by the EUs policies and reaction to the crisis in the Middle East, as we have left the EU we should be able to dictate our own immigration policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding this thread increasingly bizarre.

The point has been made that we can't afford a few thousand asylum seekers (far less than France or Germany or Spain) who desperately need a safe refuge and somewhere to live and work in peace.

And yet we're giving 3 million HK folk the right to come here. 

And if we're talking money, I give you but 2 examples off the top of my head:

Grayling wasted £33m on non existent ferries, £2 billion on the east coast Virgin franchise, £437m on a botched privatisation of the probation service, £23m on a botched GP tagging system for prisoners and £75,000 on appealing over prisoners' rights to have books.

Hancock - another clown - wasted £16m on anti body tests from China that were faulty, £8 billion on PPE that was below standard and useless (like him), £10 billion an a failed app, and around £346m on 7 Nightingale hospitals, 5 of which had no patients.

And some posters complain when we give asylum seekers a fiver a day to live off.

Give me strength. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

I think the U.K. should have a proper process whereby we only accept applicants that have been made from the first safe country they arrive in and only accept applicants when they fly in to the country if they have proper documents and we return anyone coming in by boat back to where they came from and anyone flying in without documentation making it clear they will not be able to apply for asylum in the future. This will help to prevent those making the dangerous journey, it enables us to properly vet the genuine applications. To do this we MUST leave the Human Rights Act which dictates what we can do. So to answer your question I’m short, yes, I do think we should take asylum seekers in but under strict conditions and in limited numbers.

The EU have taken so many refugees in because of Merkels open invitation which she back tracked on shortly after. This is a problem made a lot worse by the EUs policies and reaction to the crisis in the Middle East, as we have left the EU we should be able to dictate our own immigration policy.

So in your plan, countries who are poorer than us, and already take a bigger proportion of the burden, should take even more and us less. All because they arent situated on a island at the far end of the continent. Unless you believe (and I'll guess that you dont) that once these asylum seekers are processed in the country they first arrive at, that each country takes on their fair share financially, which would mean us taking more asylum seekers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheSage said:

I'm finding this thread increasingly bizarre.

Because most of it is bluster and distraction. I don't feel any argument about laws or cost matters one bit, and therefore will make no change in opinions.

If finances is the issue, then its been shown we already take a smaller burden financially than poorer countries.

If law is the issue, then they just argue to change it.

If humanitarian issues are the worry, then send ferries...but we cant because of the cost...and around we go again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

I didnt say you did but you have once again managed to dance around the edges to avoid acknowledging the irony of a brexiteer defendig the right of somebody to flee to another EU country.

I don't see the connection between the two.

I don't see the principal of brexit to stop people leaving or arriving, being in the EU just made it easier. I don't see brexit as a means to close boarders but to control them like many other countries do, and have a right to.

The policies countries employ to decide are contentious but the right to refuse should be paramount. Every country has that right.

You seem to be suggesting that people who voted for brexit shouldn't want to move or shouldn't be allowed to..... which is a little odd as many people said (mainly celebrities)  that if brexit won they would leave..... but haven't.... now that's ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

 To do this we MUST leave the Human Rights Act which dictates what we can do.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The Human Rights Act is a piece of UK legislation introduced by the UK Parliament.  Do you mean we should repeal the Act.  If so, are you aware of the possible consequence in all areas that such an action could cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

I think the U.K. should have a proper process whereby we only accept applicants that have been made from the first safe country they arrive in and only accept applicants when they fly in to the country if they have proper documents and we return anyone coming in by boat back to where they came from and anyone flying in without documentation making it clear they will not be able to apply for asylum in the future. This will help to prevent those making the dangerous journey, it enables us to properly vet the genuine applications. To do this we MUST leave the Human Rights Act which dictates what we can do. So to answer your question I’m short, yes, I do think we should take asylum seekers in but under strict conditions and in limited numbers.

The EU have taken so many refugees in because of Merkels open invitation which she back tracked on shortly after. This is a problem made a lot worse by the EUs policies and reaction to the crisis in the Middle East, as we have left the EU we should be able to dictate our own immigration policy.

So those with family here who speak English and perhaps not French or German should stop in Germany or France and not here? Would you be applying that rule if Scottish people had to seek asylum? Would you be happy to take all of them in if the situation demanding that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy