I watched this yesterday after PMQ's . It really wasn't. Patel responded to every point and basically asked her her solution. Did you see that too?Originally Posted by jon1959
It's a bit pointless these videos without the rebuttals.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I watched this yesterday after PMQ's . It really wasn't. Patel responded to every point and basically asked her her solution. Did you see that too?
It's a bit pointless these videos without the rebuttals.
If as you say she rebutted every point, how much is the scheme costing?
I didn't really study the video in order to take an exam in it. I'm just saying, I saw Patels statement, I saw Yvette Coopers response and I saw Patels response to that and both are impressive orators. Seeing one speech in what was effectively a conversation isn't that helpful
I've seen both, and Patel didn't come across well
I thought she did well in highlighting the hypocrisy and lack of ideas from the other side tbh. It was a lot of grandstanding.
So we just go with the first disgraceful idea that was tabled, due to there not being a conclusive solution on a hugely complex issue?
Denmark is closely watching these developments, as the Social Democratic party (they pose as left of center, but in reality are closer to the Tories when it comes to most things these days) we have in government is also planning on doing the exact same thing. They have the same deals set up with Rwanda...
It's a disgrace. And no I don't have the solution to the worlds migration problems, but I do know that putting people on places to Rwanda is not a solution.
The idea isn't to send lots of people to Rwanda it's that it acts as a deterrent so that thousands of people don't jump the asylum queue by paying criminals thousands of pounds to cross the channel.
I don't see what's disgraceful about it. I think it's disgraceful to not have any tabled solutions to the problem tbh
Do you think many in Calais know about it? I doubt it.
I'd say it's more of a communication to groups of voters in the UK than potential asylum seekers abroad
you don't think it's disgraceful to send people, who you have no idea whether they are ligitimate asylum seekers or not, to a country with a terrible human rights record and pay their oppressive leaders money to do so thereby propping up their oppressive regime?
there is NO indication that this will deter anyone from making the journey. the Home office have done no analysis as to what the numbers will be following this policy.
a refugee fleeing oppression in some far flung country is not going to have a detailed knowledge of our immigration policies, and it's not as though the criminal gangs that will offer to take them to the UK are going to tell them that there's a small chance they'll be flown to Rwanda, or even how dangerous the journey would be.
I think the policy may help to reduce numbers yes, and that it's worth trying.
You seem to think the killer argument is that analysis doesn't show what the impact will be; but analysis never does, and the situation is pretty unique. You also want to place all faith in a theoretical analysis and none in a practical one. My understanding is that this has made a real difference in similar migration patterns to Australia, no?
Moreover, there remains a total lack of appreciation for the issue or a desire to solve it.
Again, all we've had is:
Let them apply from France (which no doubt France don't want, and wouldnt stop boats anyway)
and
Sanctimony and insults at anyone who thinks this is worth trying.
Disgraceful not having concrete solutions to hugely complex issues? Well lets start at not outsourcing things we don't like and don't want to deal with to other countries (with very recent histories of genocide amongst other problems). Then we can start the debate on where to go from here. Making the world a more even place economically is the ultimate goal, but that essentially means people like ourselves accepting to take a hit on our own quality of life/finances to some degree, at least in the short term. And let's face it, most people are not willing to do that, certainly no Tory would anyway.
You think these flights are a deterrent? You are having a laugh. Say a person came from Libya as an example. If the two insanely dangerous sea crossings on terribly inadequate, overcrowded boats, and who knows what else they face in between didn't stop these people coming, nothing will.
Right now as things stand, I would probably guess that there is no solution to stopping migrants coming to wealthy countries like the UK & Denmark. People want a better life for themselves and their families, and who can blame them. We'd all be doing the same thing if the roles were reversed.
Of course, it's not difficult to understand. So should the UK and Denmark take in whomever wants to live here? And those that don't should what? What should we do? You are seemingly arguing that literally everyone who comes here should be allowed to stay, or aren't you? And how would you deport people who do arrive illegally?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote