As for your first comment, it was already been answered. As for your second, I doubt very much that the Queen had forgotten the murder of Lord Mountbatten at that point.
English channel migrant crossing crisis #6
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Uk Politics Threads
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I might add it’s you full of nonsense, trying to moderate posts and only giving an opinion once you’ve read up on the Guardian 
then typing meaningless long essays on a point nobody made in the first place 
…I’m sure the Sunak fans would hold the same opinion of you.
---
then typing meaningless long essays on a point nobody made in the first place …I’m sure the Sunak fans would hold the same opinion of you.---
What has that got to do with Starmers public backing for genocide?? I’d doubt Mountbattens victims will ever forget either, they’re still trying to get justice .
You thinking my post was a 'long essay' explains why you are so spectacularly ill-informed.I might add it’s you full of nonsense, trying to moderate posts and only giving an opinion once you’ve read up on the Guardian
Snoozefest isn't it? Must take up a huge part of their day. Life's way too short
That's why I had to put them on ignore. They might actually make some decent points (highly doubtful) but you'd never see them in amongst those novels.
In general, not that specific post
Yesterday I watched a documentary about how the EU have externalized its borders the last 8 years. The UK benefits partly of those agreements as it makes harder for migrants to travel to the UK, plus a new agreement will be signed in the near future for a collaboration with Frontex, the EU border agency. To some extent, the increase of asylum seekers reaching the UK is an effect from Brexit as the UK doesn't benefit anymore from the Dublin mechanism. Asylum seekers are aware that by going to the UK, it will be harder to be deported.
Anyway, this externalization of the borders led to agreements with governments like Turkey, Tunisia, Niger etc. Turkey is known to be using the agreements it has with the EU to blackmail the EU to get more funds for instance, threatening to release refugees stuck in Turkey if they don't get what they want. Belarus and its backer did it in 2022 when it massed 30 000 migrants at its border with Poland. Niger might not anymore as a proxy border since the coup last summer - unless if, I guess, the EU decides to recognize the new government. It is also partly why Wagner mercenaries under russian leadership are supporting coups in countries of the Sahel as it jeopardizes any agreement to block migrants towards Europe. Basically, those agreements have weakened the EU because it can be easily blackmailed,it also entails making agreements with governments with shady practices of human rights (Hello Tunisia etc.). It's very costly and not that effective, as as soon one channel is closed through one of these agreements, another one is opening.
The idea of sending asylum seekers to a third country, like Rwanda have similar flaws (super costly, agreements with a shady government, not effective unless thousands of asylum seekers can be sent every month, which seems currently unrealistic). Plus, on a human rights level, sending against their will people in a country they have no link, it's not far away from participating actively to human traffic... All those uneffective solutions looked by the EU and UK politicians are happening in a context where they know they have to be seen that they are doing something against the stream of migrants coming to Europe. It doesn't really solve the problem, it leads to many deaths (people dying in the Sahara, drowning in the sea etc.) and brings a steady amount of people to be trafficked.
The point that is rarely discussed is why the flux of migrants towars Europe is constantly increasing? It's lazy to believe it is just for benefiting from social welfare - who would put up with travelling on dangerous roads, working as a slave in places like Libya to be able to finish the journey etc, just to get access to social welfare? The thing is a big amount of migrants come from countries: A) That have been plunged into chaos - sometimes for decades - because of external interventions and/or because of the leadership of a manic dictator, eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan etc. B) That have been chronically poor because of the looting of their ressources by paramilitaries forces collaborating with big multinationals, helped by the elites of these countries (Nigeria, RDC, Centralafrique, etc.). In general, many migrants come from countries that have been repeteadly destabilized by geopolitical actors who benefit from the chaos. They are also coming from countries where climate change effects are being felt more than other places (farmers from Pakistan, Bengladesh, Tchad etc.).
The thing is that European countries are rarely opposing those who are delibaretely seeking chaos and external interventionism (sometimes our governments are absolute complicit) in all these countries, leading to massive exodus. There are little attempts to limit the collaboration of multinationals with whom we have ties with violent paramilitaries or greedy elites of the countries where they get their raw supply. There is no interest to reform the WTO even though its current structures are highly damaging for countries that are mainly productors of raw materials (many countries of the global South). We can keep on voting for harder and harder immigration laws, putting in place ineffective systems like Rwanda or externalising borders, it won't diminish efficiently the migration pressure. It will just lead to more black labour, exploitation, trafficking etc. I know that Europe cannot do much alone against those situations in the global South, that other powerful actors are actively participating those catastrophic situations - like Russia, the US, China, the Gulf states etc., but it is absolute madness to be silent and participating to it when it brings uncontrollable migration towards Europe with all the effects we are living today.
Anyway, this externalization of the borders led to agreements with governments like Turkey, Tunisia, Niger etc. Turkey is known to be using the agreements it has with the EU to blackmail the EU to get more funds for instance, threatening to release refugees stuck in Turkey if they don't get what they want. Belarus and its backer did it in 2022 when it massed 30 000 migrants at its border with Poland. Niger might not anymore as a proxy border since the coup last summer - unless if, I guess, the EU decides to recognize the new government. It is also partly why Wagner mercenaries under russian leadership are supporting coups in countries of the Sahel as it jeopardizes any agreement to block migrants towards Europe. Basically, those agreements have weakened the EU because it can be easily blackmailed,it also entails making agreements with governments with shady practices of human rights (Hello Tunisia etc.). It's very costly and not that effective, as as soon one channel is closed through one of these agreements, another one is opening.
The idea of sending asylum seekers to a third country, like Rwanda have similar flaws (super costly, agreements with a shady government, not effective unless thousands of asylum seekers can be sent every month, which seems currently unrealistic). Plus, on a human rights level, sending against their will people in a country they have no link, it's not far away from participating actively to human traffic... All those uneffective solutions looked by the EU and UK politicians are happening in a context where they know they have to be seen that they are doing something against the stream of migrants coming to Europe. It doesn't really solve the problem, it leads to many deaths (people dying in the Sahara, drowning in the sea etc.) and brings a steady amount of people to be trafficked.
The point that is rarely discussed is why the flux of migrants towars Europe is constantly increasing? It's lazy to believe it is just for benefiting from social welfare - who would put up with travelling on dangerous roads, working as a slave in places like Libya to be able to finish the journey etc, just to get access to social welfare? The thing is a big amount of migrants come from countries: A) That have been plunged into chaos - sometimes for decades - because of external interventions and/or because of the leadership of a manic dictator, eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan etc. B) That have been chronically poor because of the looting of their ressources by paramilitaries forces collaborating with big multinationals, helped by the elites of these countries (Nigeria, RDC, Centralafrique, etc.). In general, many migrants come from countries that have been repeteadly destabilized by geopolitical actors who benefit from the chaos. They are also coming from countries where climate change effects are being felt more than other places (farmers from Pakistan, Bengladesh, Tchad etc.).
The thing is that European countries are rarely opposing those who are delibaretely seeking chaos and external interventionism (sometimes our governments are absolute complicit) in all these countries, leading to massive exodus. There are little attempts to limit the collaboration of multinationals with whom we have ties with violent paramilitaries or greedy elites of the countries where they get their raw supply. There is no interest to reform the WTO even though its current structures are highly damaging for countries that are mainly productors of raw materials (many countries of the global South). We can keep on voting for harder and harder immigration laws, putting in place ineffective systems like Rwanda or externalising borders, it won't diminish efficiently the migration pressure. It will just lead to more black labour, exploitation, trafficking etc. I know that Europe cannot do much alone against those situations in the global South, that other powerful actors are actively participating those catastrophic situations - like Russia, the US, China, the Gulf states etc., but it is absolute madness to be silent and participating to it when it brings uncontrollable migration towards Europe with all the effects we are living today.
No different to what Gaddafi did during his reign , granted he did stick to his end of the blackmail bargain…5bill to stop Europe turning black.
Luckily they’re not interested in welfare the new French rules mean they don’t get any only under certain conditions.
Good. All it did was create a new problem. Just give people enough time to find new accommodation. There's no logic in speeding up applications with no forward planning as to what happens next.
www.theguardian.com
Ministers have quietly reversed an administrative change made in the summer that resulted in refugees being evicted from hostels with just seven days’ notice, triggering a surge in street homelessness.
The Home Office admitted that it had abandoned the measure, introduced in August, which in effect reduced the notice-to-quit period from 28 days to just a week, giving refugees awarded leave to remain little time to find alternative housing and get social security support.
That change, seemingly designed to cut the asylum backlog and speed up the removal of refugees from hotels, triggered a sharp increase in destitution and rough sleeping, forcing some local homelessness charities to resort to buying tents for refugees.
_________________________
Before August, the 28-day move-on period began when a refugee received their biometric residence permit, allowing them to work or get universal credit. The change meant the period started from the day a refugee received their asylum decision letter, meaning they had as little as seven days to find somewhere to live.
The subsequent rapid rise in refugee street homelessness has proved embarrassing for a government whose most high-profile social policy is to eradicate rough sleeping.
Home Office reverses policy on UK hostel evictions after surge in refugee homelessness
Measure, introduced in August, in effect gave people granted leave to remain just seven days’ notice to move on
www.theguardian.com
Ministers have quietly reversed an administrative change made in the summer that resulted in refugees being evicted from hostels with just seven days’ notice, triggering a surge in street homelessness.
The Home Office admitted that it had abandoned the measure, introduced in August, which in effect reduced the notice-to-quit period from 28 days to just a week, giving refugees awarded leave to remain little time to find alternative housing and get social security support.
That change, seemingly designed to cut the asylum backlog and speed up the removal of refugees from hotels, triggered a sharp increase in destitution and rough sleeping, forcing some local homelessness charities to resort to buying tents for refugees.
_________________________
Before August, the 28-day move-on period began when a refugee received their biometric residence permit, allowing them to work or get universal credit. The change meant the period started from the day a refugee received their asylum decision letter, meaning they had as little as seven days to find somewhere to live.
The subsequent rapid rise in refugee street homelessness has proved embarrassing for a government whose most high-profile social policy is to eradicate rough sleeping.
Aka kicking the can down the road, problem still there after 28 days.
Difference being that people have the time to get their documents back or from the HO (BRP cards being especially important as they allow you to claim benefits if needed) and possibly find a job or somewhere else to live if you’re told you won’t get help with housing
Now you can come back with the same talking points but this is a massive massive change. Especially for those that are supporting new refugees
We’ll see!
England isn’t safe anymore because of the immigrant scum causing crimes left right and centre!Are we to believe there’s no safe places in a continent 40 times the size of UK ! Nobody wants tent cities in their areas.
Asylum seekers homelessness crisis: 'I sleep in the station'
There are 1.2 million people waiting for social housing across the UK, according to the charity Shelter. After the government managed to cut the asylum backlog by tens of thousands, groups have said those granted refugee status have nowhere to go.news.sky.com
What problem? Finding a home?
Because the data suggests that the change directly resulted in homelessness among refugees.
Before that it was lower. The change created the problem.
Incase you missed it there’s 12 million people homeless.
meaning it's good to reverse a policy which was making it worse
Reversing it for how long?
Bigot
There’s police standing guard at a school in Dublin after the horrific attack on three children and their teacher, apparently over an Algerian ( Irish citizen) welfare being cut, in the country 20 yrs, never worked nor learned the language.
How long before the UK taxpayer is hit with this charade, if there’s no room at the inn then it’s time to pull down the shutters.
---
www.express.co.uk
---
Spoke too soon , already happening in UK
Asylum seekers in migrant hotels sue Home Office over ‘unfit housing’
Asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded hotels are suing the Home Office if food or accommodation is not up to scratch.
Last edited: