RayC

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Huge fan. I seem to recall you were the one eager to overturn the Brexit vote, not me. 

 

 

The images do not lie. 

 

London is full of white Liberals and has a huge Muslim population. So his two tiered policing where Jews are forbidden from walking freely due to being "openly Jewish" and Pro Palestine protestors are allowed to openly call for Jihad are obviously popular with that Demographic.

 

Many tyrants have been elected. 

Like others I struggle to see the connection between the Sadiq Khan, the London Mayoral Elections and the Eurovision Song Contest.

Anyway just for the record - and correcting yet another of your factual inaccuracies - London does not have a "huge" Muslim population (unless you consider 15% to be huge). 

6 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If one is to believe the Guardian (the irrefutable and unimpeachable source of commentary and news on European politics?) the government being formed, under the direction of a veteran socialist senator (himself neither directly elected nor representative of the views expressed by the Dutch electorate) will consist of a number of experienced politicians, and a number of selected technically experts.

 

In other words, the "old gang" will continue in power. Most explicitly not what the people voted for in November.

A sizeable majority (67%) of the Dutch electorate explicitly voted against the idea of Wilders being PM. However, there is something to see here, but not the 'sitch-up' which you imply.

Given that no party gains an overall majority in Dutch elections, a process has to be adopted in order to form a coalition government with an acceptable PM. This process involves appointing an "informateur" (meditator) who is tasked with meditating between the various parties. The party which secured the largest individual share of the vote - in this case, Wilders' PVV party - selects the informateur. Following the failure of two previous meditators, the PVV selected Kim Putters, the " veteran socialist politician" to whom you referred. Putters has since concluded that there is no chance of a coalition government, in which Wilders will be PM, being formed. Putters has now been replaced by two new informateurs -  who are both from right-of-centre parties - who are similarly tasked with finding a solution to the impasse.

Some may view the Dutch system of appointing a government as chaotic. However, it is arguably more democratic than the 'first past the post' system employed in the UK. Of course,  that is all a matter of opinion.

The link below offers an opinion regarding the effect of PVV's strong showing in the election. Far from being excluded from mainstream Dutch politics, it suggests that they are now very much part of it.

https://www.politico.eu/article/with-geert-wilders-give-up-what-is-next-netherlands/

If the purpose of this initiative was to bolster the Tory vote in the recent local elections, then it failed miserably.

I have watched one interview of Ms. Greene, so perhaps it wasn't representative of her.

However, based on that one observation I would say that Ms. Peek is spot on in her assessment.

55 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Good old Boris. But he wasnt proposing a resurrecton of the empire, was he?

 

Just following your example when it comes to hyperbole, Nauseus (Macron = Napoleon).

55 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What a strange notion - whoever told you that?

Fellow by the name of Johnson. Wonder what became of him?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/15/rest-world-believes-britain-time-did/

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not convinced the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

There is issue of Governments being in control of what becomes an essential means to obtain essential services.

 

I have on a number of occasions lived and worked in countries in which ID cards are mandated. The period between applying and texting ID is very special kind of purgatory in which the applicant is essentially a ‘non-person’, unable to access bank facilities, rent accommodation, access medical care or even simple things like obtaining a phone SIM card or buy a rail season ticket.

 

I’m sure the idea of such restrictions on immigrants would appeal to our resident racists and xenophobes but at a society level they inevitably lead to abuse of immigrants and increases in crime by people who are excluded.

 

I like the idea of the citizens choosing the Government rather than citizenship being something that Governments can withhold by refusing to issue or by canceling an ID card.

 

 

ID cards were - and I'm pretty sure still are - compulsory in Belgium. It was 25 years ago when I first applied for an ID card there but, if I remember correctly, the application process consisted of us presenting ourselves at the town hall where we were given a document stating that our applications were being processed. This document was accepted by banks, etc. Again, If memory serves we received our ID cards +/- 1 week later. All in all, a minor irritation but no great inconvenience.

I don't doubt that it will take refugees longer to obtain an ID card. That is unfortunate but they will be 'in the system' and have access to essential services.

The likelihood of a country such as Belgium refusing to (re)issue or withdraw an ID card without justification is imo almost non-existent. In any event, if the state is that keen to persecute an individual, then it will do so regardless of whether they possess an ID card or not.

17 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Not a problem. Simple and easy. Just have a government issued photo ID. This is the rule for voting in almost any country in the world. But of course. UK had to be different again.

It's not only the UK being different. There are many countries e.g. The Netherlands where ID cards are not compulsory.

However, having said that I agree that ID cards are simple and easy. Imo the benefits - especially in this digital age - for both the individual and the state far outweigh the negatives.

14 minutes ago, transam said:

NOT BREXIT on our King's thread, PLEASE..........

Give it a rest..........

I wasn't the one who introduced Brexit into this thread, Trans. 

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

An internet search will reveal an almost complete lack of data suggesting that Brexit has had a positive negative effect.

What search term/ string are you using?

I searched for "effects of Brexit". The overwhelming majority of the results returned suggest that Brexit has had a negative effect.

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

In your opinion!

An internet search will reveal an almost complete lack of data suggesting that Brexit has had a positive effect. On the other hand, there is a seemingly endless number of articles, reports, etc detailing the negative effects of Brexit.

Given that, I don't see how it is possible to come to any other rational conclusion apart from the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative effect. 

4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The U.K is doing quite well post Brexit . 

It hasn't been the disaster predicted by remainers .

The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK.

Whether it constitutes a disaster is a subjective judgement.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

It was completely a new paragraph and separated by a huge chunk of advertising and continued afterward, that's how it was missed.

 

Be slightly dumb to miss out something deliberately to allow AN detectives like you to jump all over an error, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, that was one judge's interpretation of it in 1999, and that's what it was interpretation.

 

Now, it is all clear with laws in place to send them elsewhere.

As I inferred at the outset, illegal migration is a Europe-wide problem and imo it therefore needs Europe-wide cooperation to find a lasting and sustainable solution(s).

The FACT remains that there is no "rule" (EU or UK) that refugees must be returned to the first safe country they entered and simply doing so will not solve the problem. All it will do is sour relations between ourselves and our European neighbours.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

These are people who have gone about their applications the right way or manner. The vast majority are Ukrainians and Hong Kong BNO passport holders.

Not the case. Ukrainians and HK BNO passports holders were settled in the UK under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act.

The figure of 66% which I quoted, referred to those individuals seeking asylum in under the provisions of the Refugee Convention. The link which I previously posted highlights these differences.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

And how many ILLEGALS just disappear into the mist without attending appointments or interviews, once they have got into the UK.

I don't know but I'd hazard a guess that the majority are those who overstay their visa.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

We are seeing large arrivals now from India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and a host of other countries where there is NO CONFLICT.

Refugee status is not just granted to those fleeing war zones, it also applies to those fleeing other forms of persecution e.g. because of their political views, sexual orientation, etc.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

These are just people wanting to move to a ready-made country to improve their economic prospects.

In which case, they would have their application for refugee status rejected. The fact that 66% of applications for refugee status are granted goes a long way to refuting your contention.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Those in boats arrivals have been deemed not to be real asylum seekers, more opportunistic migrants, these practices are fuelling the black marketeers from Albania and other criminal enterprises.

Do criminal gangs traffick people? Of course.

However, where is the evidence to support your claim that those arriving in boats are opportunists and not genuine refugees? Government data (see previously posted link) suggests otherwise.

3 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

They also know every trick in the book to avoid deportation assisted by smart ass immigration lawyers, such as refusing to give country of origin and grinning whilst they throw passports into the sea.

 

Again, where is the evidence to support your contention? Personally, I find it hard to believe that a refugee has an in-depth understanding of immigration law before they decide to head to the UK.

2 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

Ukrainians are genuine refugees and fleeing war and would be very happy to return to their home country as soon as the fighting ceases.

66% of applications for asylum in the UK in 2022/23 were granted which suggests that the majority of refugees were genuine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=As at the end of,a grant rate of 63%.

8 hours ago, novacova said:

The American left are fascist though and though. They are in a constant turmoil of obsession to shut down anyone who disagrees with them and it is alive and well in the current US administration, congress and DOJ, though I’d never expect anyone who has been propagandized to have the wits to understand the obvious.
 

 

Didn’t imply or suggest that, you did. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a leftist, accusing others of what they do themselves, such fascism.

Your original claim was regarding " .. the fascist in D.C....". not the "American left". Unless they are one and the same i.e. no fascists or "left" outside of the capital, you have moved the goalposts. In my experience, this often happens when attempting to debate with blinkered ideologues, who seldom let rationality interfere with their thought processes.

In a similar vein, I did not accuse you of stating or implying that the Russian election was free and fair, I merely asked you to avoid suggesting it. You managed to avoid doing so; well done.  Unfortunately, I'd suggest that this was more due to luck than judgement.

I would never claim to have a particularly deep understanding of the US or its' politics and it appears that I am not alone in that regard.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nice dodge.

 

The correct answer was "yes it will be much worse under a Labour government".

 

The UK is done. I'm glad I saw the best of it and left at the right time. 

 

Wokeism/Liberals will cause the ruination of the West and common sense will see the rise of the East. Thankfully I predicted this and planned appropriately so i don't have to live through the failure we are currently seeing.

 

I watch it from a distance with a sadness for my extended family and a huge dose of relief that I could forsee it and acted upon my instincts. 

 

My remaining hope is that Liberals stay there and experience what they created. It's only a matter of time before it reaches Islington. 

You were warned not to go cheap. Your crystal ball is faulty.

7 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

Europe, especially Germany, allowed this to happen and, in fact, encouraged it to a large degree in the early days until the full ramifications came home to roost.

Agreed. Which is all the more reason why an effective Europe-wide solution is necessary. 

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Cooperation sounds great. Let Europe cooperate and build refugee camps close to the borders of Europe. Let the asylum seekers stay until their claims are adjudicated. Have planes on standby to deport those who do not qualify. 

The EU has deals with Libya and Turkiye to try and stem the flow of illegal migrants. How successful these initiatives have been - and whether they represent 'value for money' - is debatable Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any easy solutions. 

10 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Indeed. I thought the purpose of asylum was physical safety, not preference. Asylees are required to move to the first safe country, then wait.  "Shopping" for a preferred host country is not seeking asylum.  Obviously France is just happy to be rid of them. 

Is France happy to be rid of illegal migrants? Possibly but it appears that the same charge could be levied against the UK.

In any event, France isn't usually the first 'safe' European country where illegal migrants land. More often than not, it is either Greece or Italy.

There are effectively two choices: 1) The rest of Europe turns it back and says to Greece and Italy, "your problem". In such a case, I would suggest that a likely natural response from the Italian and Greek authorities would be to let those illegal migrants who were simply transiting though their countries en route to somewhere else, to do so unopposed 2) Europe accepts that it is a continent-wide problem and attempts to find a cooperative solution to the problem.

4 hours ago, MJCM said:

thx, but I have no idea where that is. I live in Buriram and have to come over to BKK to do this m

Map location 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8jhpz1Um1NP6btr98