RayC

This article shows what might of happened if we had left with 'No Deal'. How exactly would that have been beneficial? https://www.politico.eu/article/what-happens-no-brexit-trade-deal-eu-uk/

There is much to admire about Thailand and it's people but those traits aren't among them. Still, no surprise that you should find them appealing. I didn't suggest that all Thais did. However, some do and the local Wat forms a big part of community life in much of Thailand. You would discover that if you ever left your solipsistic bubble. I would suggest that you return to the UK and see for yourself that is not the case - how long's it been since you set foot in the UK? - but we are better off without you.

Hit a nerve, did I? Not for the first time, I notice that you avoided answering my question. What attracted me to Thailand in the first place was the offer of a well-paid job, and a lifestyle which would have been unaffordable to me in the UK at the time. We (my wife and me) live in the UK most of the year - the place that you care so much about, you state you will never return to - and Thailand during the UK winter. I have no time for nationalists, who use an accident of birth in a misplaced attempt to show their superiority. On the other hand, I have a great deal of admiration for patriots who serve their country and communities. Yes, I think that individuals should practice a high degree of personal responsibility and that enforcement of the law is a good thing (how strictly it should be enforced will depend on the situation). Your comment suggests that you consider these traits negative. If by 'political correctness', you mean treating people with respect irrespective of their creed, colour, gender, religion, etc. then, again, that's something I try to practice. Given that you demand that immigrants to the UK fully integrate, I assume that you are fluent in both spoken and written Thai, get up at sparrow's fart to offer alms and volunteer regularly at the local Wat?

Would you agree that replacing 'black' with 'Muslim' in your analogy rings just as true?

So what's your solution to the debt problem? The government should pause/ cease all spending?

That's because UK universities generate more revenue from overseas students - whose tution fees are uncapped - than domestic students whose fees are capped. It's just one example of the ill-thought out, confused thinking wrt higher education that has prevailed in the UK for the past 30 years.

I don't think that deportation will be necessary as Truss will probably depart for the US under her steam: There appears to be a bigger market for her crackpot ideas in the US than the UK.

That's alright then (sarcasm alert)

Therefore, Napoleon was an Englishman?🤷

What deterrents are you proposing exactly? Australia's problem with illegal mitigation is totally different to Europe's; Australia's is overstayers, Europe's is illegal entry. According to the Refugee Council of Australia figures only 273 people were intercepted at sea or arrived by boat in Australia in 2022 and 2023. Unless hoardes of people are arriving undetected, it's a non-problem. I suppose that this could be down to an efficient Australian deterrent and border force, but imo it is more likely due to very few people trying to enter Australia illegally by boat.

Notwithstanding that I disagree that the UK is any more of a magnet for illegal immigrants than countries such as Germany, it's fair to point out that in the absence of a solution which destroys the smuggling gangs, deterrents are necessary. (Incidentally, I assume that you are not suggesting starving illegal immigrants). However, the government faces no end of problems in this regard. Ignoring my misgivings about the treatment of these individuals, I would still question what form these deterrents should take: For example, would the Rwandan plan be successful i.e. have the desired deterrent effect? Is it financially viable? Other suggestions such as returning illegal migrants to France are imo non-starters unless the UK wants to provoke a major diplomatic incident with the EU (I discount blowing up the boats for the same reason as HeffieHandbag: Imo no civilised person should even contemplate the idea). Controlling illegal immigration might not be impossible but - to restate the blindingly obvious - it certainly isn't easy.

Well said. It really is that simple. How anyone could disagree with your statement is beyond me

I agree and not it's not just France. I dare say every European country holds a similar view which, imo, is why Europe as a whole needs to act as one and search for a co-ordinated, collaborative solution to the problem.

Why am I not surprised that you choose to ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit your narrative? Apparently nothing must be allowed to infringe upon your individual sovereignty, even if it means that others suffer the consequences: 'No accountability and no responsibility' appears to be your mantra.

Not exactly the most objective of interviewees, but an interesting listen nonetheless. https://on.ft.com/4dzrxSo (Note: Comments about MSM bias are unnecessary. They are taken as given)

I doubt that I am alone in thinking that most of the posts in this thread are ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... oh, yes .... weird!😉

You've hit the nail on the head. The key is destroying the gangs that arrange for illegal immigrants to enter the country. The question is how do you do that? I imagine that most European governments would like to know the answer to that question. Until then, we are stuck with those who will do no more than complain about any Labour government policy without giving it a second thought or a chance to succeed (or fail).

That sounds a lot like the argument used by the gun lobby in the US. Could be a coincidence (I doubt it) but there are a lot fewer deaths from firearms in the UK - where ownership of guns is restricted - than the US. Maybe we should restrict ownership and cross-breeding of dogs and see if that has any effect.

I'll rephrase. Why join (and continue) a "futile" discussion?

Then why did you instigate it in that case?

As I said previously, you are employing a 'sliding doors' type argument. This renders any discussion meaninglessness. What would have happened if the IRA had succeeded in assassinating Thatcher? What if Gordon Brown - not Tony Blair - had succeeded John Smith? No doubt scenarios can be modelled, but there are an almost infinite number of permutations and underlining assumptions, so imo it is a meaningless exercise. Very few, if any, government policy decisions can be definitely categorised as 'good' or 'bad'. What we should do is make an 'informed' opinion based on the evidence. In the case of the privatisation of public goods in the '80s - and at the risk of over-generalising - I would contend that the evidence suggests that it did more harm than good.

Alternatively, you could supply a link(s) detailing how the '80s privatisations benefitted the UK and then we could have a discussion about the relative merits of our cases. There are most probably studies which considered alternative scenarios to the mass privatisations of the '80s. I note that you ignore the evidence I put forward about Railtrack.

It's a 'sliding doors' argument. Using your rationale few, if any, government policies or decisions can ever be judged as we can't know what would happened if the alternative(s) had been enacted. I have already supplied links about the effects of the privatisation of some utilities e.g. water in the 1980s. Imo this evidence suggests that the negative effects outweigh the positive. As for a direct point of comparison. What about Railtrack? The privatised company went into administration. Without government intervention, the UK would have had no functioning rail service. There cannot be any doubt that would have been a negative outcome.

Well, that's pretty definite and final. All I offer in reply is, 'Have a nice day'😉

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of the general public. Imo the problem WAS the 'philosophy' of privatisation (capitalism) - at least as practiced by Thatcher - which seemingly centred on the idea that all regulation was bad and that private sector monopolies were more efficient than their public counterparts. As I said previously, evidence over the last 40 years suggests otherwise and that public goods e.g. water, gas, electricity, telecomms, etc, which are natural monopolies and require large capital investment, are better off being centrally managed by the state.