Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Politics


miamiwhite

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It ain’t working because we’ve not been able to implement it. 

We're in charge of our own destiny now....surely this wonderful Government, given the size of it's current majority, can pretty much do what they like?  -  unless we aren't actually in control of our own destiny of course.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sweep said:

We're in charge of our own destiny now....surely this wonderful Government, given the size of it's current majority, can pretty much do what they like?  -  unless we aren't actually in control of our own destiny of course.....

 

16 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

#taking back control

#getting brexit done

#build back better

Three word catch phrases with no substance. 

Even our government can be legally challenged… nowt to do with taking back control or Brexit… stupid comments! not sure why I bother replying TBH. Any how Merry Xmas. xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

 

Even our government can be legally challenged… nowt to do with taking back control or Brexit… stupid comments! not sure why I bother replying TBH. Any how Merry Xmas. xx

What legal challenges are you referring to?

And surely being in control means just that. Otherwise, what was the point….?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It ain’t working because we’ve not been able to implement it. 

Errr it is in place and was declared legal (with caveats) this week. The comment from Bolty is that having it there is a deterrent , but it is not because the vast vast majority won't be forced down that route, only 200. Maybe look up what happened when Israel did similar with Rwanda ?

If we do the max 200 it will cost £1m per head, you know it is a waste of money. Surely you can see the £200m could be better spent elsewhere.

The caveats about this being made legal where that money and resources were dedicated to it. 
I think 99% of people would agree having thousands trying to get here in dinghies is shit fir everyone concerned. Wasting £200m in yet another Govt sound bite from these idiots is not the solution . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

 

Even our government can be legally challenged… nowt to do with taking back control or Brexit… stupid comments! not sure why I bother replying TBH. Any how Merry Xmas. xx

I’m just showing you that this government says a lot but achieves very little. It has been the same with illegal immigration. It has got steadily worse under their watch because they are full of shit. They are not processing applicants, they have an ill thought out policy with Rwanda and there is no indication they have any long term policy to stop traffickers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

 

Even our government can be legally challenged… nowt to do with taking back control or Brexit… stupid comments! not sure why I bother replying TBH. Any how Merry Xmas. xx

I get that, and it's not a dig at you at all, but we were sold the dream that we'd be able to do what we want and be in control of our own borders and who comes and goes. Let's be honest, it doesn't seem that way at the minute does it.

The whole Rwanda thing isn't much if a deterrent, as is being shown by the fact the numbers are still increasing. As said before, sink a few dinghies, that could/should be the best deterrent. Failing that, pay our fishermen to blockade the channel (as much as they can) for a few weeks, as well as get as many frigates as we can patrolling the waters, and push them back from whence they came. The Tory Government claims to have a hard stance, they clearly don't, and something has to be done to deter the attempts to cross in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ani said:

Errr it is in place and was declared legal (with caveats) this week. The comment from Bolty is that having it there is a deterrent , but it is not because the vast vast majority won't be forced down that route, only 200. Maybe look up what happened when Israel did similar with Rwanda ?

If we do the max 200 it will cost £1m per head, you know it is a waste of money. Surely you can see the £200m could be better spent elsewhere.

The caveats about this being made legal where that money and resources were dedicated to it. 
I think 99% of people would agree having thousands trying to get here in dinghies is shit fir everyone concerned. Wasting £200m in yet another Govt sound bite from these idiots is not the solution . 

I’ve already said it’s poor value for money, whatever plan the government make will be challenged time and time again, think we need to look at our rules and what conventions we are signed up to, if we don’t like them change them and if necessary leave if we don’t like them and are continually hamstrung by them. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right, I've never really looked into the Rwanda deal because I thought it was all a bit unsavoury.

... but having read the last few posts I spotted the 'swap' deal where we swap one refugee for another.  Why would we send a refugee to a country that has citizens who could qualify as refugees? Apologies if I'm being a tad dim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’ve already said it’s poor value for money, whatever plan the government make will be challenged time and time again, think we need to look at our rules and what conventions we are signed up to, if we don’t like them change them and if necessary leave if we don’t like them and are continually hamstrung by them. 

Aye.  Sign up for stuff, but if we don't like what we've signed up to then just shrug our shoulders and ignore the terms. #takingbackcontrol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Our beaches, our shite. Control taken back.

Indeed, although during the leave campaign we were told standards would be more stringent. The same with food standards. Does anyone with a straight face believe this lot have the environment and public health high on their agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’ve already said it’s poor value for money, whatever plan the government make will be challenged time and time again, think we need to look at our rules and what conventions we are signed up to, if we don’t like them change them and if necessary leave if we don’t like them and are continually hamstrung by them. 

Mate that is what I am saying, stop fucking about with sound bites and unaffordable schemes come up with some workable and process some of the applications.

That will involve engaging with 'some of them' such as the leaders in Albania to find out why so many come here. Spend money breaking the traffickers so working with the French etc etc in fact being proper politicians not desperate chancers holding on by their finger nails. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.