RayC

I have no doubt that some more money will be spent but I very much doubt whether that will equate to 5% of GDP for each and every NATO member, although I suppose an accounting sleight of hand might make it appear so.

That is pure speculation. You cannot possibly know for a fact.

Even if the National Security Act were to be invoked that does not solve the problem. My issues are with your solution concerning the setting up of camps on the south coast. I have posed questions to you about this potential solution throughout this thread and they remain unanswered. How about addressing my unanswered questions contained throughout this thread before I address any more of yours?

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the National Security Act in its' original form but working on the assumption that AI has produced a good summation of it, I remain unconvinced that it would be the correct mechanism to enact your solution. At the very least, I'd imagine that its' use in this context would be the subject of a legal challenge. I didn't miss that statement i.e. "To protect the UK's democracy, economy, and values from foreign interference", I think that using this clause in the context of 'stopping the boats' would also be subject to a legal challenge. I assume that my other questions posted throughout this thread will remain unanswered?

I think that you might be right, Trans. 'Committing to spending' and actually spending are two different things. Nevertheless, I don't see how this commitment can't be seen as a triumph for Trump.

If the US wants to disengage itself from Europe it is, of course, perfectly entitled to do so. However, it will not be without consequence in the medium/ long term. Europe's ties with China are strained at the moment, if the US is not longer interested in being our BFF maybe China will be. Not good news for US exporters. Incidentally, where and when did Trump say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified?

Look back at our exchange throughout this thread and it is clear that I have answered your questions directly, something that you have completely failed to do with mine. Yes you do have a choice. You can either keep things civil or be aggressive. Seems like you have made your choice. Here's one fact for you. If you reply aggressively, condescendingly or rudely I will reply in kind. So just because I don't offer an easy solution to a complex problem, I'm not entitled to point out what I perceive as flaws in other solutions? Right. See my previous posts for some of my questions about the use of camps on the south coast as a form of deterrent. (I have others but why don't you address the outstanding unanswered ones firstly). Wrt to the use of the National Security Act as an enabler for your solution, there might be a legal problem in doing so. My interpretation of the AI generated text below is that it could only be used if individuals were known to be involved in acts which could threaten the UK. Given that there are no passenger lists for those arriving illegally by boat - i.e. their identities are unknown - from my layman's point of view, it's difficult to see how the National Security Act could be invoked in these circumstances. _-----+++++++++++++ "While the National Security Act could be used in specific cases, it's not typically the primary mechanism for addressing illegal immigration. The UK has specific immigration laws and a Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill focused on controlling and managing borders. The National Security Act primarily deals with threats to national security, such as terrorism, espionage, and serious organized crime, and could be invoked against individuals involved in such activities, regardless of their immigration status".

Typical of you. When challenged about potential flaws in one of your 'cure all' solutions for the problems faced by the UK, you do not address the points raised - presumably because you have no explanations - but instead launch into a personal attack and then top it off with some empty, bombastic rhetoric. No, I don't have a solution to the illegal migration problem. I've said that all along. To admit that, "is allowed, you know" as Nigel Farage might reply. You now have a choice: You can either 1) end this exchange 2) engage in polite discussion. It's possible; see my exchange with Noshowjones or 3) continue exchanging insults. Up to you. I'll go along with what you decide.

I understand why you might think that having read some of the posts on AN, but the UK is not too bad really and probably no more dangerous than Gaza, Kyiv or Tehran on a bad day. Some visitors even occasionally make it back home in one piece. I'm based in London; pop round for tea but make sure you leave under coverage of darkness. You'll never make it during daylight hours. Anyway, bon vacation et bon voyage. See you soon 😉

Sorry that the link didn't work for you. I just copied and posted the address in my browser and it worked ok so I'm not sure what is the problem. According to government figures, +/-4,000 people were sleeping rough on the streets of the UK in Autumn 2023, although Shelter puts the figure at 12,000. I found both figures surprisingly low, but then my observation is based on London where most are congregated. Given the relative low figures, imo it should be possible to offer shelter to these individuals if they want it. As I stated in one of my earlier posts, I don't think that there is an easy answer to the illegal migrant problem and I don't think Reform have the answers to the country's problems either. Guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

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