I just got a butt hurt down from some daily mirror type, I’m sure I would like in real life. So: UK defense is 62.2 B UK refugee services is 2.4 B And a lot of that goes for public health that keeps the entire population safe. My argument stands, arguing against refugee services on the base of cost is not meaningful. The supposition that if all that money was withheld that it would go to services that you approve of, shows a touching innocence about the way government’s work. This very modest sum for humanitarian aid is reasonable and proportionate for England. You can argue against immigration, and I would largely agree with you. But this argument has nothing to do with that argument.
Create an account or sign in to comment