Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 10:45:52 GMT
I'm not focusing on France, I'm focusing on the French Navy ushering vessels out of their waters and in to ours, but only because you brought the subject up. More than half of the world's population are bilingual. Around half of French people speak English.
Around 10% of Africans already speak French.
That's before we even look at Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese.
If I were a genuine refugee then learning another language would be a small price to pay to keep myself and my family safe.
Haven't looked in detail, but a quick search finds 768,000 immigrants are here who speak no English at all or speak English poorly. It seems that around 140,000 of those have no English whatsoever.
www.nhs.uk/accessibility/health-information-in-other-languages/ Why would this be needed if every immigrant arrived speaking like Rees-Mogg?
For me, someone speaking a different language isn't an issue per-se, but it must restrict employment opportunities? I'm only giving the above info as you brought the point up.
The point is, (and we need to go back to the start here) Why are these people risking their lives to come here and what should be done about it? If you ae one of those people that believe that we shack this people up in posh hotels and chuck out hand outs to them left right and centre, than surely the solutions lie within our system and making it more difficult and discouraging people to risk their lives to come here in the first place rather than turning them around That's an entirely different discussion, we started here with you saying this; I'm sure you are now aware of the arrangement with France, which they are not adhering to, but are now requesting additional funds to implement. I'm sure you'll agree, right is right, wrong is wrong, the French wouldn't even offer to do something that was wrong just because we had agreed to pay them?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 10, 2020 11:05:37 GMT
The point is, (and we need to go back to the start here) Why are these people risking their lives to come here and what should be done about it? If you ae one of those people that believe that we shack this people up in posh hotels and chuck out hand outs to them left right and centre, than surely the solutions lie within our system and making it more difficult and discouraging people to risk their lives to come here in the first place rather than turning them around That's an entirely different discussion, we started here with you saying this; I'm sure you are now aware of the arrangement with France, which they are not adhering to, but are now requesting additional funds to implement. I'm sure you'll agree, right is right, wrong is wrong, the French wouldn't even offer to do something that was wrong just because we had agreed to pay them? fine so what are we going to do about it? Start a war with France? my understanding of the current treaty is we pay x for essentially 'our border to be moved to the French side'. Whether this is sufficient I do not know. Again though it's more than turning people around. Why do these people flock to Calais to come here? key point though is Both parties can withdraw from the treaty, which would mean a return to hard national borders. That move would symbolically cut Britain off from the continent just as it is implementing Brexit.
I mean that's what we really want anyway isn't it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 11:42:24 GMT
That's an entirely different discussion, we started here with you saying this; I'm sure you are now aware of the arrangement with France, which they are not adhering to, but are now requesting additional funds to implement. I'm sure you'll agree, right is right, wrong is wrong, the French wouldn't even offer to do something that was wrong just because we had agreed to pay them? fine so what are we going to do about it? Start a war with France? my understanding of the current treaty is we pay x for essentially 'our border to be moved to the French side'. Whether this is sufficient I do not know. Again though it's more than turning people around. Why do these people flock to Calais to come here? key point though is Both parties can withdraw from the treaty, which would mean a return to hard national borders. That move would symbolically cut Britain off from the continent just as it is implementing Brexit.
I mean that's what we really want anyway isn't it A great question, why do those people want to pass through multiple other safe countries to come to a place that so many claim is plagued with racism on a personal and institutional level? Could it be because the UK and America, and also Canada, are the most welcoming countries in the world, where skin colour simply isn't a barrier to opportunity? What are you talking about, hard borders, the channel is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point. It doesn't matter whether we are paying too much or not a single penny, the French Navy is escorting vessels out of their water into ours when they should be plucking those people out of their waters and processing them. You do realise that in 2018 Macron's government passed a law which meant that illegal immigrants are to be detained and face 1 year prison terms? Yet without knowing who is in those vessels they escort them out of their territory and in to ours. At the same time rules for people applying for asylum were changed, they can now be held for 90 days whilst being processed, at the end they will either be granted asylum or returned to their own country, in theory. If their application is successful additional support was approved, including more help with learning French. We have an agreed quota of people that we accept, there should not be a single vessel in the channel containing these people, if the French see them in French waters they should pick them up and take them back to France. Us paying towards that is a nonsense to start with, France taking the money and still doing what they are tells you, yet again, the contempt that Macron has for us. We're off, and I couldn't be happier.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 10, 2020 11:58:33 GMT
fine so what are we going to do about it? Start a war with France? my understanding of the current treaty is we pay x for essentially 'our border to be moved to the French side'. Whether this is sufficient I do not know. Again though it's more than turning people around. Why do these people flock to Calais to come here? key point though is Both parties can withdraw from the treaty, which would mean a return to hard national borders. That move would symbolically cut Britain off from the continent just as it is implementing Brexit.
I mean that's what we really want anyway isn't it A great question, why do those people want to pass through multiple other safe countries to come to a place that so many claim is plagued with racism on a personal and institutional level? Could it be because the UK and America, and also Canada, are the most welcoming countries in the world, where skin colour simply isn't a barrier to opportunity? What are you talking about, hard borders, the channel is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point. It doesn't matter whether we are paying too much or not a single penny, the French Navy is escorting vessels out of their water into ours when they should be plucking those people out of their waters and processing them. You do realise that in 2018 Macron's government passed a law which meant that illegal immigrants are to be detained and face 1 year prison terms? Yet without knowing who is in those vessels they escort them out of their territory and in to ours. At the same time rules for people applying for asylum were changed, they can now be held for 90 days whilst being processed, at the end they will either be granted asylum or returned to their own country, in theory. If their application is successful additional support was approved, including more help with learning French. We have an agreed quota of people that we accept, there should not be a single vessel in the channel containing these people, if the French see them in French waters they should pick them up and take them back to France. Us paying towards that is a nonsense to start with, France taking the money and still doing what they are tells you, yet again, the contempt that Macron has for us. We're off, and I couldn't be happier. Is being off really going to stop this?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 10, 2020 12:10:24 GMT
fine so what are we going to do about it? Start a war with France? my understanding of the current treaty is we pay x for essentially 'our border to be moved to the French side'. Whether this is sufficient I do not know. Again though it's more than turning people around. Why do these people flock to Calais to come here? key point though is Both parties can withdraw from the treaty, which would mean a return to hard national borders. That move would symbolically cut Britain off from the continent just as it is implementing Brexit.
I mean that's what we really want anyway isn't it A great question, why do those people want to pass through multiple other safe countries to come to a place that so many claim is plagued with racism on a personal and institutional level? Could it be because the UK and America, and also Canada, are the most welcoming countries in the world, where skin colour simply isn't a barrier to opportunity? What are you talking about, hard borders, the channel is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point. It doesn't matter whether we are paying too much or not a single penny, the French Navy is escorting vessels out of their water into ours when they should be plucking those people out of their waters and processing them. You do realise that in 2018 Macron's government passed a law which meant that illegal immigrants are to be detained and face 1 year prison terms? Yet without knowing who is in those vessels they escort them out of their territory and in to ours. At the same time rules for people applying for asylum were changed, they can now be held for 90 days whilst being processed, at the end they will either be granted asylum or returned to their own country, in theory. If their application is successful additional support was approved, including more help with learning French. We have an agreed quota of people that we accept, there should not be a single vessel in the channel containing these people, if the French see them in French waters they should pick them up and take them back to France. Us paying towards that is a nonsense to start with, France taking the money and still doing what they are tells you, yet again, the contempt that Macron has for us. We're off, and I couldn't be happier. Isn't that the tricky bit though. Techically it may be French Water, but part of the agreement with France is that our border is on their land, so once they are in the water who's problem is it really? but yes We are off indeed. and ddi you know that after 31st Deceber we leave the Dublin Accord (I beleive that's the name of it) which means we can't just return people to France being that we are 3rd country
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 12:20:26 GMT
A great question, why do those people want to pass through multiple other safe countries to come to a place that so many claim is plagued with racism on a personal and institutional level? Could it be because the UK and America, and also Canada, are the most welcoming countries in the world, where skin colour simply isn't a barrier to opportunity? What are you talking about, hard borders, the channel is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point. It doesn't matter whether we are paying too much or not a single penny, the French Navy is escorting vessels out of their water into ours when they should be plucking those people out of their waters and processing them. You do realise that in 2018 Macron's government passed a law which meant that illegal immigrants are to be detained and face 1 year prison terms? Yet without knowing who is in those vessels they escort them out of their territory and in to ours. At the same time rules for people applying for asylum were changed, they can now be held for 90 days whilst being processed, at the end they will either be granted asylum or returned to their own country, in theory. If their application is successful additional support was approved, including more help with learning French. We have an agreed quota of people that we accept, there should not be a single vessel in the channel containing these people, if the French see them in French waters they should pick them up and take them back to France. Us paying towards that is a nonsense to start with, France taking the money and still doing what they are tells you, yet again, the contempt that Macron has for us. We're off, and I couldn't be happier. Is being off really going to stop this? I didn't say that it was, my point was that I'm glad that we are loosening ties with a country that obviously has very little respect for us under their present government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 12:23:27 GMT
A great question, why do those people want to pass through multiple other safe countries to come to a place that so many claim is plagued with racism on a personal and institutional level? Could it be because the UK and America, and also Canada, are the most welcoming countries in the world, where skin colour simply isn't a barrier to opportunity? What are you talking about, hard borders, the channel is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point. It doesn't matter whether we are paying too much or not a single penny, the French Navy is escorting vessels out of their water into ours when they should be plucking those people out of their waters and processing them. You do realise that in 2018 Macron's government passed a law which meant that illegal immigrants are to be detained and face 1 year prison terms? Yet without knowing who is in those vessels they escort them out of their territory and in to ours. At the same time rules for people applying for asylum were changed, they can now be held for 90 days whilst being processed, at the end they will either be granted asylum or returned to their own country, in theory. If their application is successful additional support was approved, including more help with learning French. We have an agreed quota of people that we accept, there should not be a single vessel in the channel containing these people, if the French see them in French waters they should pick them up and take them back to France. Us paying towards that is a nonsense to start with, France taking the money and still doing what they are tells you, yet again, the contempt that Macron has for us. We're off, and I couldn't be happier. Isn't that the tricky bit though. Techically it may be French Water, but part of the agreement with France is that our border is on their land, so once they are in the water who's problem is it really? but yes We are off indeed. and ddi you know that after 31st Deceber we leave the Dublin Accord (I beleive that's the name of it) which means we can't just return people to France being that we are 3rd country This is sounding desperate now. So, let me get your position straight. You think that we are responsible for people who are illegal immigrants in France who leave that country and are still in French territorial waters. There you have just how bonkers the left are folks, just let this nonsense sink in, this is the contortions they will go to rather than just admit that a post put up a couple of days ago in an attempt to discredit a government minister didn't make the point intended.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 10, 2020 12:28:39 GMT
Is being off really going to stop this? I didn't say that it was, my point was that I'm glad that we are loosening ties with a country that obviously has very little respect for us under their present government. I'm not purposely trying to start an argument as I'm not sure about most of it, but if you're right and due to payments the French are supposed to prevent migrant travellers leaving their shores for ours, when we cut ties and then assumeably stop that payment, aren't they just going to allow more of this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 12:52:45 GMT
Happy Monday everyone. Of course all this bollox about sovereign borders is an anachronism born of petty nationalist viewpoints. ERG anyone?. The real issue of course is the chaos and devastation wrought by our sorties into various continents. Our being the west in general. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the resulting chaos in Syria, Africa generally. Of course a system of trading which takes the natural resources of a country and enriches a tiny minority of that country because they are politically compliant to western demands. Lo betide they are not compliant, we might sanction your economy causing mayhem and even death, or we might just bomb you. If you are lucky we might buy product from you, as long as it is cheap and based upon slave, often unsafe, working conditions. Until we in the west address this, add in global warming, migration will just get worse. Trying to retreat into the 19th century will not stop it.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 10, 2020 12:59:01 GMT
Happy Monday everyone. Of course all this bollox about sovereign borders is an anachronism born of petty nationalist viewpoints. ERG anyone?. The real issue of course is the chaos and devastation wrought by our sorties into various continents. Our being the west in general. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the resulting chaos in Syria, Africa generally. Of course a system of trading which takes the natural resources of a country and enriches a tiny minority of that country because they are politically compliant to western demands. Lo betide they are not compliant, we might sanction your economy causing mayhem and even death, or we might just bomb you. If you are lucky we might buy product from you, as long as it is cheap and based upon slave, often unsafe, working conditions. Until we in the west address this, add in global warming, migration will just get worse. Trying to retreat into the 19th century will not stop it. Bloody hell Oldie, bad weekend?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 13:08:45 GMT
Happy Monday everyone. Of course all this bollox about sovereign borders is an anachronism born of petty nationalist viewpoints. ERG anyone?. The real issue of course is the chaos and devastation wrought by our sorties into various continents. Our being the west in general. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the resulting chaos in Syria, Africa generally. Of course a system of trading which takes the natural resources of a country and enriches a tiny minority of that country because they are politically compliant to western demands. Lo betide they are not compliant, we might sanction your economy causing mayhem and even death, or we might just bomb you. If you are lucky we might buy product from you, as long as it is cheap and based upon slave, often unsafe, working conditions. Until we in the west address this, add in global warming, migration will just get worse. Trying to retreat into the 19th century will not stop it. Bloody hell Oldie, bad weekend? Not particularly no. Apart from losing my temper at one point.😜😜
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:09:05 GMT
Is there an argument that the problem starts along way before the rubber dinghies are launched from Calais? People (economic migrants rather than asylum seekers) travel to North Africa before then embarking on a dangerous sea journey to Europe having handed over their life savings to vile people traffickers. Instead of we’ll meaning charities and do-gooders helping them with their journey and escorting them to their chosen destination they should be returned to where they came from. Those tempted to fork out to the people traffickers in future will definitely have second thoughts if they see boat after returning back to their ports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:10:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:12:12 GMT
Is there an argument that the problem starts along way before the rubber dinghies are launched from Calais? People (economic migrants rather than asylum seekers) travel to North Africa before then embarking on a dangerous sea journey to Europe having handed over their life savings to vile people traffickers. Instead of we’ll meaning charities and do-gooders helping them with their journey and escorting them to their chosen destination they should be returned to where they came from. Those tempted to fork out to the people traffickers in future will definitely have second thoughts if they see boat after returning back to their ports. You are right about the problems starting before they reach Calais. The problems are in their own country. Why are they running?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 10, 2020 14:21:26 GMT
Is there an argument that the problem starts along way before the rubber dinghies are launched from Calais? People (economic migrants rather than asylum seekers) travel to North Africa before then embarking on a dangerous sea journey to Europe having handed over their life savings to vile people traffickers. Instead of we’ll meaning charities and do-gooders helping them with their journey and escorting them to their chosen destination they should be returned to where they came from. Those tempted to fork out to the people traffickers in future will definitely have second thoughts if they see boat after returning back to their ports. And if they have no papers to show where they came from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:26:16 GMT
And yet again we have a link to a piece in the disgusting Guardian.
Some people have no shame.
Looks like 10% of the people leaving Africa are coming from Eritrea, almost all Male, almost all to avoid military service.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 10, 2020 14:29:23 GMT
And yet again we have a link to a piece in the disgusting Guardian. Some people have no shame. who are your approved media sources out of interest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:30:05 GMT
Is there an argument that the problem starts along way before the rubber dinghies are launched from Calais? People (economic migrants rather than asylum seekers) travel to North Africa before then embarking on a dangerous sea journey to Europe having handed over their life savings to vile people traffickers. Instead of we’ll meaning charities and do-gooders helping them with their journey and escorting them to their chosen destination they should be returned to where they came from. Those tempted to fork out to the people traffickers in future will definitely have second thoughts if they see boat after returning back to their ports. People trafficking is a multi-billion dollar industry. Yes, the issue needs to be tackled at the source but... Rhetorical questions. 1. How are the authorities going to stop that billion dollar industry? 2. With the break down of international relations, who are the authorities that can stop the trafficking? 3. Who are the people making money by trafficking immigrants?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:33:43 GMT
And yet again we have a link to a piece in the disgusting Guardian. Some people have no shame. who are your approved media sources out of interest? I would be fine with The Guardian, if either people who quote it were silent on issues of race and equality, or the paper apologised and offered reparations for their association with the slave trade. In the main, as long as they use opinion pieces from lunatics like Owen Jones and Laurie Penny, it's a vote winner for the blue team, so let them carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 14:38:31 GMT
Is there an argument that the problem starts along way before the rubber dinghies are launched from Calais? People (economic migrants rather than asylum seekers) travel to North Africa before then embarking on a dangerous sea journey to Europe having handed over their life savings to vile people traffickers. Instead of we’ll meaning charities and do-gooders helping them with their journey and escorting them to their chosen destination they should be returned to where they came from. Those tempted to fork out to the people traffickers in future will definitely have second thoughts if they see boat after returning back to their ports. People trafficking is a multi-billion dollar industry. Yes, the issue needs to be tackled at the source but... Rhetorical questions. 1. How are the authorities going to stop that billion dollar industry? 2. With the break down of international relations, who are the authorities that can stop the trafficking? 3. Who are the people making money by trafficking immigrants? The first of those is a good question, I have an appt in a few mins but will try to find some info to give a serious question the answer it deserves later on. There's research out there which gives information about the cost of helping / supporting people in their home countries as compared to the cost of integrating them into a new country.
|
|