Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?

[crankedup5]

Rufus Stone said:

swisstoni said:

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

What about the country they stepped out of and in to France, why should France take them?

They have more room than the U.K. and they are a more welcoming Country, like Germany.

[chrispmartha]

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

Except I have of course made an acknowledgement on facts, well if we can call The Guardian reports as facts.

No you haven’t, your claim was totally factually incorrect.

Incorrect assertion.

People can see what you’ve posted you know.

Pity they don’t understand.

Understand what? Your inability to read and interpret figures?

Im sure they do.

[President Merkin]

crankedup5 said:

You are free to leave the forum.

What & miss you tying yourself up in knots every day? Not a chance

[valiant]

swisstoni said:

If UK wanted to go full BNP, yes. Anyone can claim asylum wherever they like. But unless they have come straight from where they are claiming asylum, that claim can be refused.

How does one claim asylum from somewhere where there are no direct routes like Syria and how is that different from, say, Ukraine?

IMHO UK should always take in a share of valid asylum seekers as a fully fledged top 10 world economy.
This could be in agreement with other European countries where they make landfall.

We take in less than most comparable European countries so if we are to take in our fair share then that will lead to an increase of asylum seekers. Would you be happy to make an agreement with EU countries to take more?

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

Ukrainians crossed multiple safe borders including France so shouldn’t we be sending them back since by your definition they are now economic migrants?
.

[Dave200]

crankedup5 said:

Dave200 said:

crankedup5 said:

Dave200 said:

Baroque attacks said:

Dave200 said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Dagnir said:

Nope, I just dont accept the framing....I class 99% of them as economic migrants because that's what they are. They are here for a better life because that's what they've heard you can get once you're in the UK.

I'm not dense enough to allow legal obfuscation and word games detract from facts.

We're not next to a warzone and no one is being persecuted by the French....as far as I'm concerned asylum seekers and any other immigrants all have the same right to live here....none whatsoever.

If we choose to help some people in genuine need, then absolutely great but we are being taken advantage of on a HUGE scale.

I really hate to disappoint you, not. I am an immigrant and have the right to live here. Your xenophobia and bigotry seems to be blinding you to the law.

Are you really suggesting that legal immigrants have no right to be here? Would you be happy if that was reciprocated across the world? How do you think that would pan out?

Your post is offensive.

You're making a huge assumption that he's thought that far ahead in his masterplan.

A lot of it is likely based on fear.

Which right-wing agitators like Reform and GBNews prey on, feeding them misleading stats like the one about 1.1m immigrants in that hope that it leads them down a path of putting their faith in right-wing parties to solve. It's just sad.

‘ The Guardian’ also reported a total number of migrants entering million, but it was over a period of around two years or so. Where do these people find homes when the young indigenous people cannot afford a home?

No acknowledgement of the fact that you've just completely made up a datapoint to support your ill-informed view? None at all?

Except I have of course made an acknowledgement on facts, well if we can call The Guardian reports as facts.

You said: "You must have missed the massive influx of refugees I mentioned, 650,000 + in one year."

Which you then corrected down to "504,000".

The actual number of asylum seekers that year was less than 100,000. The actual number of applications accepted that year was 50,000. You were out by a factor of 10 because you were scaremongering. It turns out that anti-immigration folks don't actually care about facts.

[Dave200]

Jinx said:

Dave200 said:

That's only the same thing if you're desperate to defend the indefensible. We're talking about asylum seekers here, and the costs of housing them, as that's a key tenet of the Reform/Reclaim/UKIP manifesto. The article you've linked contains a complaint about "Eastern Europeans moving here" which at the time would have been completely legal under EU law, and absolutely in no way whatsoever related to asylum seekers. But you knew that, and were desperate to use the word "gaslighting".

Someone complaining about immigration 14 years ago being called a bigot but this is not the right sort of immigration to be complaining about and therefore isn't the same in your head?
if you can't see parallels then I suspect you are as willfully blind as a post office boss.

We were talking about asylum seekers, not perfectly normal EU immigration as was the case 14 years ago. Not remotely comparable. Do keep up.

[Dave200]

crankedup5 said:

swisstoni said:

valiant said:

swisstoni said:

valiant said:

swisstoni said:

Why should they claim asylum in UK?

Why shouldn't they?

Because they are coming from France. Which looked pretty safe a few weeks ago when there were queues of vehicles at Dover waiting to get into it.

So by that metric we should take in zero asylum seekers? After all there are plenty of safe countries before they reach us and we should also be sending all those Ukrainians back? Poland is a perfectly safe country after all...

If UK wanted to go full BNP, yes. Anyone can claim asylum wherever they like. But unless they have come straight from where they are claiming asylum, that claim can be refused.

IMHO UK should always take in a share of valid asylum seekers as a fully fledged top 10 world economy.
This could be in agreement with other European countries where they make landfall.

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

I think Starmer will sign up to some kind of agreement after the GE. But I also imagine that he will be royally stiched up in the process. Meaning that UK’s quota will not take into account the current population density compared to the likes of France, Germany and Spain and that we will contribute to EU coffers for the privilege

On the upside, at least this influx can be planned for.
And any who want to continue to pitch up here in boats can be returned to the EU ‘pot’.
You will get that included in the final deal won’t you Keir?

Otherwise we will be taking the quota and the crew who can’t or won’t qualify for genuine asylum processing.

Nothing in that I disagree with.
And Om still waiting for the ‘oh so offended’ to answer the questions regarding our inadequate infrastructure and how it can possibly be sustainable to allow such high levels of migration.
BTW migration watch is full of interesting, and in some instances, disturbing facts and figures.

Edited by crankedup5 on Thursday 25th April 16:44

What high levels of immigration are you referring to?

Are you talking about cancelling student and working visas? Those people who make up more than 90% of our immigrants and contribute to UK Plc? Or are you just worried about the 50,000 asylum seekers a year (less than 1% of the UK population)?

[Dave200]

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

Except I have of course made an acknowledgement on facts, well if we can call The Guardian reports as facts.

No you haven’t, your claim was totally factually incorrect.

Incorrect assertion.

People can see what you’ve posted you know.

Pity they don’t understand.

That you made up a datapoint to justify you feeling scared of foreign people coming to the UK?

[swisstoni]

valiant said:

swisstoni said:

If UK wanted to go full BNP, yes. Anyone can claim asylum wherever they like. But unless they have come straight from where they are claiming asylum, that claim can be refused.

How does one claim asylum from somewhere where there are no direct routes like Syria and how is that different from, say, Ukraine?

IMHO UK should always take in a share of valid asylum seekers as a fully fledged top 10 world economy.
This could be in agreement with other European countries where they make landfall.

We take in less than most comparable European countries so if we are to take in our fair share then that will lead to an increase of asylum seekers. Would you be happy to make an agreement with EU countries to take more?

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

Ukrainians crossed multiple safe borders including France so shouldn’t we be sending them back since by your definition they are now economic migrants?
.

You’ve doctored my original post, removing important points.

[Mortarboard]

crankedup5 said:

Rufus Stone said:

swisstoni said:

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

What about the country they stepped out of and in to France, why should France take them?

They have more room than the U.K. and they are a more welcoming Country, like Germany.

What's the uk plan when the EU-wide approach kicks in?

M.

[swisstoni]

Mortarboard said:

crankedup5 said:

Rufus Stone said:

swisstoni said:

But should not take in anyone who chooses to come from the safety of France because they fancy UK more. They have immediately declared themselves economic migrants imho.

What about the country they stepped out of and in to France, why should France take them?

They have more room than the U.K. and they are a more welcoming Country, like Germany.

What's the uk plan when the EU-wide approach kicks in?

M.

Ask Starmer. i’ve already said what I suspect will happen.

Incidentally, the EU have been negotiating amongst themselves how to deal with immigrants since their previous Dublin Accord broke down.
They’ve recently arrived at a new agreement whereby immigrants will be resettled.

Edited by swisstoni on Thursday 25th April 18:08

[Baroque attacks]

President Merkin said:

crankedup5 said:

You are free to leave the forum.

What & miss you tying yourself up in knots every day? Not a chance

Altho they do go quiet when they don’t have an answer - like the other week when the party were binning some racists.

Cranky said something about ‘all types apply and they’re being weeded out’… missing the point the racists had already been accepted to stand and in one case had previously stood and represented the party!

[Mortarboard]

This is thevfirst EU-wide approach. Not sure the uk gets an allowance for France to deal with.

M.

[Dave200]

Baroque attacks said:

President Merkin said:

crankedup5 said:

You are free to leave the forum.

What & miss you tying yourself up in knots every day? Not a chance

Altho they do go quiet when they don’t have an answer - like the other week when the party were binning some racists.

Cranky said something about ‘all types apply and they’re being weeded out’… missing the point the racists had already been accepted to stand and in one case had previously stood and represented the party!

I've never ventured into this thread, but it's cracking entertainment value watching these folks tie themselves in knots by pretending to understand important things.

[bad company]

Dave200 said:

I've never ventured into this thread, but it's cracking entertainment value watching these folks tie themselves in knots by pretending to understand important things.

‘Never ventured into this thread’. You’re here constantly belittling anyone with a different opinion from your own. Your a classic case of a ‘Keyboard Warrior’.

[Dave200]

bad company said:

Dave200 said:

I've never ventured into this thread, but it's cracking entertainment value watching these folks tie themselves in knots by pretending to understand important things.

‘Never ventured into this thread’. You’re here constantly belittling anyone with a different opinion from your own. Your a classic case of a ‘Keyboard Warrior’.

My first ever post on this thread was yesterday and the people I'm belittling deserve it for holding such ridiculous, unfounded views.

[crankedup5]

President Merkin said:

crankedup5 said:

You are free to leave the forum.

What & miss you tying yourself up in knots every day? Not a chance

Do you have any other words of advise, I mean you know when it’s half price day at ‘spoons’ the fountain of knowledge knows no bounds.

[crankedup5]

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

crankedup5 said:

Except I have of course made an acknowledgement on facts, well if we can call The Guardian reports as facts.

No you haven’t, your claim was totally factually incorrect.

Incorrect assertion.

People can see what you’ve posted you know.

Pity they don’t understand.

Understand what? Your inability to read and interpret figures?

Im sure they do.

Then you surety is misguided, no surprise.

[crankedup5]

Dave200 said:

crankedup5 said:

Dave200 said:

crankedup5 said:

Dave200 said:

Baroque attacks said:

Dave200 said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Dagnir said:

Nope, I just dont accept the framing....I class 99% of them as economic migrants because that's what they are. They are here for a better life because that's what they've heard you can get once you're in the UK.

I'm not dense enough to allow legal obfuscation and word games detract from facts.

We're not next to a warzone and no one is being persecuted by the French....as far as I'm concerned asylum seekers and any other immigrants all have the same right to live here....none whatsoever.

If we choose to help some people in genuine need, then absolutely great but we are being taken advantage of on a HUGE scale.

I really hate to disappoint you, not. I am an immigrant and have the right to live here. Your xenophobia and bigotry seems to be blinding you to the law.

Are you really suggesting that legal immigrants have no right to be here? Would you be happy if that was reciprocated across the world? How do you think that would pan out?

Your post is offensive.

You're making a huge assumption that he's thought that far ahead in his masterplan.

A lot of it is likely based on fear.

Which right-wing agitators like Reform and GBNews prey on, feeding them misleading stats like the one about 1.1m immigrants in that hope that it leads them down a path of putting their faith in right-wing parties to solve. It's just sad.

‘ The Guardian’ also reported a total number of migrants entering million, but it was over a period of around two years or so. Where do these people find homes when the young indigenous people cannot afford a home?

No acknowledgement of the fact that you've just completely made up a datapoint to support your ill-informed view? None at all?

Except I have of course made an acknowledgement on facts, well if we can call The Guardian reports as facts.

You said: "You must have missed the massive influx of refugees I mentioned, 650,000 + in one year."

Which you then corrected down to "504,000".

The actual number of asylum seekers that year was less than 100,000. The actual number of applications accepted that year was 50,000. You were out by a factor of 10 because you were scaremongering. It turns out that anti-immigration folks don't actually care about facts.

Evidence, I’m interested in where you get your numbers from.

[Killboy]

crankedup5 said:

Have to see what develops from this. If a resignation comes in or a dismissal then my support for Reform U.K. stands.Thing is nasty stuff is emitted from political mouths of all colour rosettes.

Has he resigned yet? Or does it actually not matter?