I have a way of beating the boats. An idea that allows the EHCR to do it's thing, but with modifications to existing legislation.
First of all, let me say the EHCR can stay and the UK will support those identified as refugees.
However, legislation needs to be modified as to what constitutes a refugee. There should be no presumption on the status either way of a person arriving on the shores of the South coast. The EHCR should only come into force when the identity, statehood and status of a person has been properly identified.
Any person arriving on these shores without a passport should not be afforded the protections of the EHCR. By destroying any documentation they had they have arrived at the UK with a malicious intent. That should be the UK's stance at the outset.
People that arrive with documentation should be afforded a higher status because it costs us less and takes less time to identify a person and confirm their status either as a refugee or not. Passports by definition normally request the protection of the bearer by the host country. That's a legal contract. Those without any identification should have no legal status on the shores of the UK. They should be bussed to the airport and returned back to France.
Those with identifiable malicious intent (destroying ID) should be immediately returned from whence they came. No protection, no identifiable status, in fact their actions stem from a need to not clarify their status, to abuse any process the UK has. As I said, malicious.
That's the way you deal with unidentified individuals.
The argument being that without ID there is no way to immediately assess their status. They cannot be granted refugee status without knowing where they come from. A deliberate attempt to obfuscate their identity and therefore their status should be classed as malicious and indeed an illegal act.
There should be no automatic or inferred status as a refugee as determined by UN, EU, UK or any other legislative body.
It seems that Geert Wilders is on track for a victory in the Dutch elections. Classed as far-right by the media, Wilders fought an anti-immigration stance. It seems the generally tolerant Dutch have had enough of mass immigration and have now voted Wilders in to be the majority party in Dutch politics.
But this does seem to indicate a point has been crossed and politics will never be the same again. I think the public have sussed that mass immigration does not benefit the country accepting the immigrants. Especially if the government allowing the immigration to happen do nothing to accommodate the numbers arriving. Allowing mass immigration without having the economic ability and spare housing stock to properly disperse these immigrants across the country is just madness.
So mass immigration does nothing for the economy, it also does nothing for social cohesion. As the numbers increase, there is less ability to gradually integrate into the society of their chosen country. Instead we get ghettos where each ethnic group set up shop. They also bring with them the animosities and social mores from their previous countries. They do not integrate and disperse. They steadfastly refuse to.
I know people from my Northern home town three generations now, where they have not spoken English. They may have learned it in school, but instead in using it as their main language, their main language is the language of their "home" country, the country they identify as their ethnic root. They speak the language of their "home" country mainly, they marry across borders into communities either in their home country, or from the disparate ethnic groups in European countries. Some born in England speak English so poorly they rely on the interpreters that councils supply at great expense. I also put "Home" in quotes, because even they were born in Britain and live here, they do not see Britain as their home country. Their home country is on another continent. They only mention Britain as their home when it suits, when it affords them some benefit, some advantage. Otherwise, Britain is far from their affections.
The issue of numbers and non-integration is so bad that now even the chattering classes that have very little interaction with the ethnic immigrants (save for visiting the odd ethnic restaurant) are seeing the increase in violence perpetrated by immigrants on our streets.
It seems that rather than be grateful to the country that gave them protection from whatever persecution they were fleeing from, they are spiteful towards the country that took in their family and gave them safe haven.
I think we are seeing the tipping point. Thanks to the various marches across Europe, the disrespect for our culture, our heroes and our social mores, the majority of the public are saying they have had enough.
At some point that person that keeps shitting on your lawn has to be dealt with. It's a pity that it's taken so long for a majority of the population to wake up. It makes the task of integration or deportation more difficult. One hopes that the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water over them would see them off and locking the gate will do. But I have my doubts, sadly.
But I'm heartened that it is happening, however slowly.
The Conservative Party have been in power and they still haven't abolished the IR35 rules introduced by Labour that killed the independent contractor market.
13 years and waiting.....
And the next budget will be controlled by a Labour chancellor, so I doubt I'll see IR35 abolished in my working lifetime.
I'm always minded to disagree when someone says "The Government must do something" regarding whatever pet interest they are championing.
The problem is that the rules that come out of that "Doing Something" may not do the thing you want them to do and have further unforeseen consequences down the line, or elsewhere in legislation.
I'm reminded of this by the Formula One debacle last weekend, where Carlo Saintz hit an unsecured manhole cover and destroyed his car. It required serious repairs to fix the car ready for the following day.
But Formula One has had rule changes over the last decade to try and enforce some semblance of fairness and to allow lesser-monied teams to compete with the teams with larger pockets. Laser-focussed on creating a fair playing field, they ignored the affects the rule changes would have on every single scenario, including the repair of a car forced upon a team by outside forces.
So teams are limited to the number of things they can change on a car to limit the amount of upgrades or to stop them adding important parts that only last a race. Changing major parts incurs a penalty.
Teams are also cost-capped.to try and even the playing field, so none of the big teams could have a budget ten times the amount of the smaller teams and gain an advantage in increased R&D.
Sadly, no-one foresaw a car being damaged by a poorly prepared track.
So Carlos's car was destroyed by the track. Unfortunately major parts required replacing. Instant penalty. Go back ten places on the grid.
Despite the stewards looking at loopholes to try and avoid Carlos being penalised through no fault of his own, there were none. The rules were watertight. Ten steps back you go. Very unfair on the driver as everyone recognised. But... unintended consequences.
Not only that, the costs of the repair now rest with The team Ferrari. That's an unplanned cost that now affects their cost cap. So late in the season there is very little chance to absorb that cost into the overall budget. So it's possible they may be over the allowed budget at the end of this season. That is, unless someone accept liability for the unsecure manhole cover and compensates Ferrari for the cost of the repairs, so the work than becomes budget-neutral. Would the track owner pay the hundreds of thousands out of their insurance? Would insurance cover it? Would Ferrari chase the operative that welded the manhole shut, if they were self-employed? Would their professional liability cover pay out?
The point I'm making is that unless you are some omnipotent being that can foresee absolutely every consequence of your actions and any legislation you propose, then be very wary of imposing it. Because one day there may be a very unintended consequence of your legislation, something severely affecting a person or group of people you never intended to affect.
It seems the Anti-Brexit rhetoric will never end and now we have a fervently Pro-Remain, Pro-Globalism cabinet in charge of the country.
Will we ever get the Brexit we asked for?
Also will the Remainers ever stop moaning about the damage caused to the UK by Brexit?
It's very easy for Remainers to blame an aged grey-haired, male, Racist, Zenophobic caste of the country for voting to leave the EU, but they steadfastly fail to blame the people to blame for Brexit: themselves.
They failed to convince a majority of the country that the EU was worth voting for.
The EU itself failed to show it was worth voting for.
If the EU was maybe more upbeat about allaying Brexiteer's concerns, rather than just hoping for the best, then Brexit may never have happened.
Instead the EU continued to work in it's own arrogant way and didn't do the work to convince a significant majority of the country that it was worth fighting for. As with much of modern politics, there was too much stick and not enough carrot.
The EU was all about directives preventing the operation of the UK government and to an extent the remnants of the EU we still cling to are still doing the same.
The ECHR controls legislation in the UK and is still overruling, via the UK supreme court (another remainer invention) the UK government's wishes.
Let's make this clear: we did not get the Brexit we were promised. From the start it was scuppered by those that thought we had voted incorrectly, that we couldn't see the benefits.
The mismash of legislation that came out of the Brexit negotiations benefitted no-one. EU authorities still seek to impose their will and punish the UK for daring to remove itself from the EU. Other countries have done it and are spectacularly successful, but the UK failed to use any leverage and instead gave up bargaining chips too easily.
EU customs authorities still take ay too long to process packages to and from the UK. They arbitrarily impose excessive charges even though paperwork is filled in correctly. Or they just reject packages for no reason.
Sorry, but that is no way to do business. If you can't be professional and instead revert to personal attacks, or act unprofessionally or unpredictably, then I have a problem with you.
These are exactly the petty, power-hungry practices we left the EU for. The practices that extort you unless you are inside the club.
Nothing has convinced me to go back despite the issues raised by the current state of Brexit.
Posts
All Comments
Posts
All Comments
