RayC

Maybe so but that doesn't answer my question.

No the same situation. Just like those arriving in the UK now, the Jews who fled Germany in the '30s would have passed through France en route to the UK. France would have been considered a safe country before May 1940, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether those against giving asylum to any of the 'boat people' feel the same way about any Jews who arrived illegally in the UK in the '30s. No, I am not comparing France 2025 to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I have no idea why you would think that.

Your objection to asylum is because it costs you more to get a hotel room? Would you have refused asylum to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution in the 1930s?

I don't understand the US legal system so would be grateful for some clarification. What's the difference between "transportation to engage in prostitution" and sex trafficking? (My interpretation would be that the former is contained within the latter) Also how is it racketeering? Wouldn't that mean that Combs would have to have benefitted financially (directly or indirectly)?

Of course it is. The UK is a 'soft touch' when it comes to refugees unlike those on mainland Europe which is why they 'all' want to come here .... Oh, hold on ... here's a thought if that's the case why don't we just copy the French policies. That should do the trick🤦😂 Maybe it does but you have offered nothing to support the idea that your overly simplistic 'solutions' will cut boat crossings by anything like 95% I haven't failed to grasp that at all. What I dispute is that your solutions will make much difference Actually I did but you refuse to admit it, unless you define anything but a change to a command economy as 'tinkering at the edges'. Corbyn and McDonnell's manifesto was radical. It would also have probably proved disastrous for the country. Trusses' budget was radical and did prove disastrous for the country. Lazy. Guilty. Hard of thinking: Maybe but then imo that is preferable to putting overly simplistic solutions in print and being thought of as ... well ... simplistic. As I admit to being lazy, I am not going to bother to go to the trouble of rephrasing an argument when a journalist has articulated my position perfectly adequately: So if you want to engage in a discussion about Reform's economic policies, read the article, post your objections to the points raised in it and then I'll reply to them (assuming that I think them worthy of a reply).

I can only answer that by differentiating between the type of 'boat person'. Imo illegal economic migrants should be returned to their country of origin and should not be kept in the UK at the taxpayer's expense. On the other hand, refugees - those seeking asylum e.g. those fleeing from persécution, war, etc - should be given a safe haven in the UK and the opportunity to build a life here. The UK has a long tradition of giving sanctuary to the persecuted and imo it is something to be proud of. I'm not so sure. Until now, each generation has been better off based on almost any criterion than the previous one. It's anecdotal but our flat growing up was better than my parents'; my access to education and health services was better than theirs; my job opportunities were better than theirs, etc. Why was that? A combination of factors of course: Parental encouragement, my ability, luck, etc. However, the point that I am labouring to make is that I doubt that any of that would have been possible if successive governments had 'betrayed' the working class. Wrt council house sales. Like you, I benefitted personally from it as I inherited my parents ex-council flat. However, overall I think that the policy did more harm than good. A link to an interesting, non-partisan article from an estate agent about council housing and the 'Right-to-buy' policy is below https://nexaproperties.com/huge-drop-in-council-houses-in-the-last-40-years/

Whether it was a staging post is irrelevant. It was an inhospitable environment and yet the number of inhabitants continued to grow. In any event, these internées will still have the right to apply for asylum, so I'd imagine that they will wait things out while they are processed (or are you going to withdraw the prospect of someone fleeing persecution, war, etc being granted asylum in the UK completely?) And I gave you examples of how different individuals within both the Labour and Conservative parties had radically different policies for solving the country's problems. To that extent, 'Labour' and 'Conservative' are merely labels and simply changing that label to 'Reform' isn't a panacea for the country's problems. And perhaps you should stop suggesting overly simplistic solutions to complex problems Read the second 'Spectator' link which I previously posted, and come back with a refutation(s) of the points made.

And your solution would be neither practical nor successful; it almost certainly wouldn't stop 95% of crossings as you claim: Why? Look no further than 'The Jungle' at Calais. That was no more hospitable an environment that what you are suggesting but it didn't stop the flow of people arriving there I agree that sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem is not an option but, imo, the solution is to stop the flow of migrants at source i.e. smash the gangs. How do you do that? No idea. But to have any chance of success it will need coordinated multi-national European action. Labour' and 'Conservative' are labels which mask a multitude of different opinions. On the Labour side, to suggest that the economic policies of Blair and Brown were no different to those of Corbyn and McDonnell is ridiculous. Likewise, contrast the policies of Truss and Sunak for the Tories. Whether the policies have to be radical is a moot point, but I agree that a (mid-term) government shouldn't simply change direction simply to improve its' popularity. If it believes in its' policies then, as you say, it should have the spine to see them through. See my first paragraph. Moreover, electing someone else simply because they are wearing a different label seems foolhardy. I agree that there doesn't appear to be anyone or anything much originating from Labour or the Tories to inspire confidence but, unfortunately, I don't think that the 'voodoo' economics of Reform are the answer either.

What link?

That's unfortunate, but as I said the onus is on you to supply a link not me to find it. Try another source?

That'll be me😁 (I wish that AN would remove the anonymity from the emojis) Yes, I'm serious about not wanting Reform to be the next government and my objections are practical. Firstly, imo the idea that Reform are going to somehow magically stop illegal immigration at the drop of a hat, when all governments in Europe for the past 10 years have consistently failed to do so, is fanciful. Secondly, any damage that Labour's economic policies may have done to the UK economy would pale into insignificance if Reform were to enact some of theirs. A couple of links from 'The Spectator', hardly a far-left journal, outlines the problems with Reform's policies https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-reform-serious-about-stopping-the-boats/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/reforms-risky-economic-experiment/

Thanks for the apology. Shame that you had to spoil things with your other comment.

The onus is on you to post the link not on me to go looking for it.

If you supply a link (in English) then I will, however, it's quite difficult to believe that the quotes in question could be taken out of context.

The Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh might feel a bit left out by that

I fear that you might be right.

Something wrong, Frank? You haven't mentioned MSM lies yet. Wrt to public support of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the floor's yours: Post a link which shows public support in Western Europe for it. (I'd advise anyone reading this post to avoid holding their breathe in anticipation of such a link unless you have a desire to suffocate yourself). Perhaps I am stupid, Frank, but the word has not yet been coined to describe your lack of intelligence if you still cling to the belief - especially in the light of Putin's recent speech - that Russia's invasion can in any way be justified.

Rubbish as usual https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/resources/article/2025/support-ukraine-still-high-among-eu-citizens-some-fall-apparent-among

“I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours.” "There is an old rule,” he added. “‘Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours’.” So there it is. Straight from the horse's mouth. All pretence gone. An admission that the invasion was a defensive measure against Western expansionism admitted by Russia's president to be nonsense and that the exact opposite is the case: This is Russian expansionism in operation. The question is, 'Will it stop at Ukraine'?

😂 Although I think that it was more a case of Pattaya being the new Costa Brava a few decades ago

Indeed. Like immigration to any country there are pros and cons. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/56654/spain-immigrant-labor-bridging-job-market-gaps#:~:text=Job growth for migrants is,their shared history and language.

So the data detailing that 2m (legal) immigrants arrived in Spain in 2022/23 from non-EU countries is a lie? And you know that how? They are +/-7m foreign-born nationals in Spain and you think 5m or more are on benefits. Any evidence to support that claim?

Use of the royal 'We'; illusions of grandeur, Jonny? Oh, that's right! You are the self-appointed spokesman for all indigenous, white, working-class, male Brits. To listen to you, anyone would think that crime, homelessness, etc didn't exist in the UK before the recent surge in immigration. A tired, old cliché to label that message as racist/ xenophobic? Maybe, but to use a tired, old idiom: If the shoe fits, wear it.

No. I have not denied that the Welfare State is under pressure, but to repeat for the umpteenth time, my points are 1) a (limited) open borders policy and provision of a welfare state are not mutually exclusive and 2) the UK does not operate an open border policy. These are facts. I am claiming no more or less than that. In that regard, the links which you provide are at best tangential.

Welfare State: A system whereby the state undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. This is what exists in the UK today. QED.