Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

icowden

Squire
I'm sure there are plenty of other places where they won't be tortured etc. That is, the ones who are not economic migrants.
So all refugees should go to other countries. Got it. What if they implement the same policy? Where do they go then? Refugees tend to naturally split between countries. We are nowhere near taking the heaviest burden.
I'm not an expert in how to deal with these things but for starters we could stop being so generous to illegal arrivals (hotel accommodation, benefits etc).
Got it. We should leave them to starve and die of exposure on the streets. Very cost effective. Do we also refuse emergency medical care when they are malnourished and ill? What is the impact on the illegal sex industry and human trafficking? Do we need more POlice for that are does it not matter because they are foreign?

And have a decent deterrent such as holding them in detention or an offshore location, or where it is clear that they are not here to escape mortal danger, a speedy return to their country of origin.
Oh - so you want to put them in prison. That's a saving of about £5k per refugee.

At least we have now got the French to do what they agreed and intercept small boats in the water on their side of the channel.
I'm still waiting for the details of the intercept plan from you and @CXRAndy. You don't seem to have one yet.
Bear in mind that you can't break international maritime law.

How well do you think the French will look for the small boats? Is there any chance that they might spot them when they are say, around about 12 miles offshore and in British waters before shrugging their shoulders, saying "Bof!" and lighting a gauloise?
 

Pblakeney

Active Member
How well do you think the French will look for the small boats? Is there any chance that they might spot them when they are say, around about 12 miles offshore and in British waters before shrugging their shoulders, saying "Bof!" and lighting a gauloise?
Tbf, I think we should get a refund from France as that's a lot of money to give them for shrugging their shoulders, saying "Bof!" and lighting a gauloise.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
You don't seem to have one yet.
Bear in mind that you can't break international maritime law

National emergency-effectively war footing

24 hour drone surveillance across the channel. High speed interceptor boats, larger return vessels, drop them off back on France.
 

icowden

Squire
Tbf, I think we should get a refund from France as that's a lot of money to give them for shrugging their shoulders, saying "Bof!" and lighting a gauloise.
But how are you going to prove that you are getting value for money?

The sensible course would have been not to give money to France in the first place and to set up legal routes for people to apply for Asylum. Take the jobs away from the traffickers.

At the same time, we could join some sort of co-operative group of European countries and work on a strategy across Europe to help asylum seekers in a fair way without overburdening any individual country...
 

Pblakeney

Active Member
But how are you going to prove that you are getting value for money?

The sensible course would have been not to give money to France in the first place and to set up legal routes for people to apply for Asylum. Take the jobs away from the traffickers.

At the same time, we could join some sort of co-operative group of European countries and work on a strategy across Europe to help asylum seekers in a fair way without overburdening any individual country...

I agree with your sensible choice but that seems to be inconceivable to all in government.
To answer your question, count the boats before and after. No value for money reduction, refund, or cancellation at least.

I put this plan on a par with Rwanda. Being seen to be doing something, paying off those to go along with it, waste of money.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
But how are you going to prove that you are getting value for money?

The sensible course would have been not to give money to France in the first place and to set up legal routes for people to apply for Asylum. Take the jobs away from the traffickers.

At the same time, we could join some sort of co-operative group of European countries and work on a strategy across Europe to help asylum seekers in a fair way without overburdening any individual country...

It is beyond my ability to work out if this would be financially viable, but, "gut feeling" suggests it would, bearing in mind the vast sums spent on Rwanda "solution", French "solution", Hotel accommodation etc:

- lay on free ferry Calais - Dover

- increase "processing staff" numbers, and, base them onboard the ferry

- process each asylum seeker as they board, those who pass, free ride to Dover, those who fail, disembarked before sailing.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
1000022672.jpg
 

Xipe Totec

Something nasty in the woodshed
National emergency-effectively war footing

24 hour drone surveillance across the channel. High speed interceptor boats, larger return vessels, drop them off back on France.

Don't forget the machine guns. Let's see those .50cal incendiary rounds ripping into their soft, puny bodies & shocked, wide-eyed, terrified faces at 1500 rpm, reducing them to red spray and bloodrags on the surface of the water if they DO NOT COMPLY IMMEDIATELY.

That's what you really want.
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Don't forget the machine guns. Let's see those .50cal incendiary rounds ripping into their soft, puny bodies & shocked, wide-eyed, terrified faces at 1500 rpm, reducing them to red spray and bloodrags on the surface of the water if they DO NOT COMPLY IMMEDIATELY.

That's what you really want.

I reckon he's got a copy of the 2008 Rambo on repeat and believes it's a documentary.

Cracking film btw. All the Rambos are.
 
Top Bottom