chelmsfordhammer91 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:25 pm
I don't understand why we pay them if there is no target/review of the impact the 'service' has. How do they quantify this? (I'm being rhetorical, I appreciate we don't know).
I can't see an incentive for France to prevent letting economic migrants cross the channel. Essentially throwing money away by the looks of it.
We've been shovelling money their way for years and all we've seen is the volume of 'boat people' grow and grow. The French know that to keep people off their cases this inept, clueless government are likely to throw more money their way next year, and the year after, etc ...
I think it's TTS(?) that has been saying for years, that this is an issue that needs the cause of people wishing to migrate dealing with rather than the symptoms. That requires international co-operation and we haven't shown that we are that keen on that in recent times as we once were.
DaveWHU1964 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 5:00 pm
That requires international co-operation and we haven't shown that we are that keen on that in recent times as we once were.
The presence of the agreements plus the 30,000 thwarted attempts say otherwise.
Meanwhile, the Italians and French are playing ping pong with rescue boats.
DaveWHU1964 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 5:00 pm
I think it's TTS(?) that has been saying for years, that this is an issue that needs the cause of people wishing to migrate dealing with rather than the symptoms. That requires international co-operation and we haven't shown that we are that keen on that in recent times as we once were.
Is there something going on that we aren't part of?
bubbles1966 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:59 pm
The deal is an £8m uplift for 40% increase in staff.
The French stopped around 30,000 attempts last year.
The UK also refused entry to the UK to five times as many Europeans since 2019.
This proves it is perfectly possible to work with a neighbour without letting them neuter your parliament.
That's an impressive number. Does it only count attempts to cross by boat? I was just listening to a discussion about this on the radio and whoever they had on was pointing out that people sneaking across in vans and lorries was almost dead as an option now.
I'm sure quite a few places have tried Cash For Passports.
Another idea about dispersal and settlement might be to settle as many people as possible in areas where the population is actually in decline. There are 17 local authorities in the UK where numbers are dwindling.
10 of them are in Scotland, 1 is in Wales, 5 are Northern coastal areas and the last one is Kensington and Chelsea.
Since these migrants are allegedly paying the trafickers £70k to get here, why don't we just sell Passports to anyone for £60k ?
Cut out the middleman .
Turn it into a money spinner, a revenue stream.
Don't lots of them borrow the money and then work it off (presumably you can never manage that), would that be a good look. Although I guess we do it with students now.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 5:27 pm
Is there something going on that we aren't part of?
I don't think so Sammy. But I think that one of the reasons that we aren't kicking up such a fuss is because we may be getting away with it slightly compared to other countries in Europe.
I still believe that the solution is a number of refugee processing areas throughout Europe. 4 or 5, and whenever you arrive anywhere, you are shipped to the closest. You make your appeal and you get your result. But I can't help but feel that the UK govt are actually not all that worried about the current situation.
Turns to Stone wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 am
I don't think so Sammy. But I think that one of the reasons that we aren't kicking up such a fuss is because we may be getting away with it slightly compared to other countries in Europe.
I still believe that the solution is a number of refugee processing areas throughout Europe. 4 or 5, and whenever you arrive anywhere, you are shipped to the closest. You make your appeal and you get your result. But I can't help but feel that the UK govt are actually not all that worried about the current situation.
Not when you look at population density we ain't. If you go by that marker then to even things up we shouldn't be taking any until those 9 or lower on the linked chart catch us up, for example France would need to more than doubles it's population density to get to our level.
Ideally there should be 1 in France to process the people they should taking to get to the same population density as ourselves, best to have the others on the North African coast, that way they haven't got to risk crossing the Mediterranean and if their application fails they're not already in Europe.......
delbert wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:49 pm
Not when you look at population density we ain't. If you go by that marker then to even things up we shouldn't be taking any until those 9 or lower on the linked chart catch us up, for example France would need to more than doubles it's population density to get to our level.
Ideally there should be 1 in France to process the people they should taking to get to the same population density as ourselves, best to have the others on the North African coast, that way they haven't got to risk crossing the Mediterranean and if their application fails they're not already in Europe.......
But as there is nothing in place in terms of allocation of immigrants, then it isn't about population density - it's purely about where people want to go. My suggestion has always been that there should be some sort of allocation and shared responsibility. As there isnt, then the British govt are probably relieved that we're not getting 100,000 a year.
Nothing is going to stop people wanting a better life. The only thing that you can do is try and work out a better way to help those that need it, and allocate funds and resources better. There will always be refugees, there will always be illegal immigration. The better you manage it, the less of an impact it will be.
Truthfully though, I would imagine the current government don't really want to fix it, as they have already identified it as a potentially massive stick with which they can beat whoever the next government is.
Turns to Stone wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 am
I still believe that the solution is a number of refugee processing areas throughout Europe. 4 or 5, and whenever you arrive anywhere, you are shipped to the closest. You make your appeal and you get your result. But I can't help but feel that the UK govt are actually not all that worried about the current situation.
A few observations:
1) Nobody wants to house the processing areas except for Rwanda;
2) Talk of 'processing areas' quickly becomes a Godwin in the eyes of some people - again, see Rwanda;
3) What happens when the processing areas get overrun, which is what is happening all over the place, from the Med to Manston?
4) The public sector unions in each country will fight against off-shoring, because it means that staff lose their jobs, and once you have established the principle within the public sector that work can be completed in another country, well....the sky's the limit for any government looking to reduce the cost of the state and sort out it's government finances No wonder the PCS don't want asylum seekers processed in Rwanda.
The alternative to bringing migrants in to fill the jobs is to send the jobs to the (not now) migrants.
No wonder the PCS don't want asylum seekers processed in Rwanda.