Discussion
crankedup5 said:
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
I disagree
You can disagree with what you like, you're interpretation here is wrong as the link provided confirms. crankedup5 said:
Yup, it has to be remembered that the Rwanda policy proposal is considered to be deterrent to those people considering coming to the U.K. via those small boats. We don’t want them to consider Rwanda will be a land of milk and honey but at the same time Rwanda is a Country able to provide a decent future that rewards hard work.
And you know that how? Or do you just swallow everything that dribbles out of her mouth regardless?Because as I said yesterday. A country can’t be both a deterrent and a blessing.
crankedup5 said:
Yes of course it’s a sound bite, but it’s a convenient tag line to use. I agree we cannot and have never had such tight control measures of our borders that exclude illegal entry into U.K. That is almost impossible to achieve of course. We have a long tradition of smugglers taking advantage of our coastline which continues to this day.
The point is ‘taking back control’ of our borders is shorthand for stopping FOM whilst we were in the EU (accomplished) and stopping illegal entry into U.K. via small boats crossing the English channel. Most reasonable people know exactly what the sound bite means, even those who disagree with the principle.
You're ably demonstrating the purpose (and danger) of three-word political slogans - they allow people to glom their own beliefs, ideas, wishes and preconceptions onto them without requiring the politician to have any concrete policies. While allowing everyone - even those with different interpretations of the slogan - to say " everyone knows what it means...it's just Common Sense!". The point is ‘taking back control’ of our borders is shorthand for stopping FOM whilst we were in the EU (accomplished) and stopping illegal entry into U.K. via small boats crossing the English channel. Most reasonable people know exactly what the sound bite means, even those who disagree with the principle.
That section of the 2019 Conservative manifesto is a superb example of political advertising, because it never actually says that Conservative policy is to Take Back Control or to Stop The Boats. It acknowledges that Brexit was about taking back control of our borders an that therefore the policy is... but leaves a handy amount of free play between those two statements. "Boats", "Crossing", and "Channel" are never even mentioned. "Stop" is only used in the context of stopping a second Scottish independence referendum and policy stop-and-search powers. So we're left back in the realms of Everyone Knows They Really Meant...
Take Back Control is also a phrase that is simultaneously meaningless and meaningful. Never mind that it implies that we lost control in the first place; there is no dispute that now the UK is not in the EU it has full and sovereign control of its borders to do with whatever it wishes. So any border/immigration policy whatsoever can meaningfully fulfil the claim to have taken back control, even if it was explicitly stated as a manifesto pledge. Which it wasn't. The mythical strawman open border policy would conceivably count as taking back control if it was a wholly domestic decision.
Crankedup5, you frequently lambast the people traffickers whose fortunes are being made on the backs of exploited people and British politicians who won't put a stop to their business model, and proclaim support for the sanctioned schemes for people from Ukraine or Hong Kong. So would you be satisfied by a similar scheme for people from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia etc. Obviously as a political dissident you can't really get away with going into the British embassy in Tehran to get your papers in order, and I doubt the Taliban has an exit visa process. So you'd have to commit to accommodating asylum claimants while their identities and cases were reviewed. And if it was an official scheme, a regular chartered ferry or flight would whip the rug out from under the people traffickers we all hold in such contempt. Control obtained, problem solved?
andymadmak said:
Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
So now it's not enough to make an accurate point, he has to make it in an entirely expert way? How much nuance do you need before you're allowed to make the observation that German political rhetoric of the 1930s involved dehumanising, 'othering' and scapegoating language? I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
I hope all those people a few years back accusing Jeremy Corbyn of Stalinist purges and riding a 'Mao-style bicycle' were all experts on Soviet socio-political history and Chinese communism...
2xChevrons said:
andymadmak said:
Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
So now it's not enough to make an accurate point, he has to make it in an entirely expert way? How much nuance do you need before you're allowed to make the observation that German political rhetoric of the 1930s involved dehumanising, 'othering' and scapegoating language? I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
ZedLeg said:
You realise "taking control of our borders" doesn't mean anything. It's a soundbite designed to appeal to a demographic of voters.
We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Except the manifesto does not make that claim. The only mention of borders is a commitment to monitor who crosses the border.We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Even that is a lie since the UK may monitor it's sea and air borders but there is minimal monitoring of our only land border with a foreign country.
Mrr T said:
ZedLeg said:
You realise "taking control of our borders" doesn't mean anything. It's a soundbite designed to appeal to a demographic of voters.
We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Except the manifesto does not make that claim. The only mention of borders is a commitment to monitor who crosses the border.We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Even that is a lie since the UK may monitor it's sea and air borders but there is minimal monitoring of our only land border with a foreign country.
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
ZedLeg said:
You realise "taking control of our borders" doesn't mean anything. It's a soundbite designed to appeal to a demographic of voters.
We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Except the manifesto does not make that claim. The only mention of borders is a commitment to monitor who crosses the border.We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.
I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.
Even that is a lie since the UK may monitor it's sea and air borders but there is minimal monitoring of our only land border with a foreign country.
Not sure what manifesto cranks read in 2019 but it was clearly not the tory one.
andymadmak said:
Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
The comments made by Andrew Castle following his conversation with Gary Lineker seemed to be fairly clear on this point (i.e. Lineker understood his tweet referencing 1930's Germany would result in a link being made to Nazi Germany). Castle also stated Lineker himself agreed he'd gone too far in drawing the parallel although as far as I'm aware Lineker's never actually admitted it in public; equally, though, I don't believe he's never denied Castle's recollection of their conversation either.I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.
Gweeds said:
Because as I said yesterday. A country can’t be both a deterrent and a blessing.
Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing. If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
Ayahuasca said:
Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing.
If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
Excellent - now let's talk about how they get here. The safe routes.....If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
Ayahuasca said:
Gweeds said:
Because as I said yesterday. A country can’t be both a deterrent and a blessing.
Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing. If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
ZedLeg said:
Oh lord do I hate the term economic migrant. I think most people here could be described as economic migrants at some point.
I'm always reminded of Norman Tebbit and his 'my father got on his bike and went to where the work was' speech (aimed at those lazy northerners in the 1980s). Seems a bike's ok, but not a boat.ZedLeg said:
Ayahuasca said:
Gweeds said:
Because as I said yesterday. A country can’t be both a deterrent and a blessing.
Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing. If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
TTwiggy said:
ZedLeg said:
Oh lord do I hate the term economic migrant. I think most people here could be described as economic migrants at some point.
I'm always reminded of Norman Tebbit and his 'my father got on his bike and went to where the work was' speech (aimed at those lazy northerners in the 1980s). Seems a bike's ok, but not a boat.andymadmak said:
That's not surprising. Many of those on the left have always resisted allowing some kind of differentiation between Economic migrants and Asylum seekers. I suppose it allows them more scope to insult and attack those that do see a difference...
I've not attacked or insulted anyone.Economic Migrant literally just means someone who moves for work. This attempt to parlay it into meaning "bad" immigrants is painfully transparent,
andymadmak said:
That's not surprising. Many of those on the left have always resisted allowing some kind of differentiation between Economic migrants and Asylum seekers. I suppose it allows them more scope to insult and attack those that do see a difference...
I am very much not on the left. Voted Conservative on every election till May and since then did not vote. I totally understand the difference between purely economic migrants and those who seek help under the UNCR who may also gain an economic benefit. I believe having committed to help the latter the UK should keep it promise. It's the honourable thing to do. And I rather hope the UK is an honourable country.
ZedLeg said:
andymadmak said:
That's not surprising. Many of those on the left have always resisted allowing some kind of differentiation between Economic migrants and Asylum seekers. I suppose it allows them more scope to insult and attack those that do see a difference...
I've not attacked or insulted anyone.Economic Migrant literally just means someone who moves for work. This attempt to parlay it into meaning "bad" immigrants is painfully transparent,
ZedLeg said:
Oh lord do I hate the term economic migrant. I think most people here could be described as economic migrants at some point.
It's a term that lets them dehumanise all migrants so they don't have to admit they're t
ts. Hence he jumped to a conclusion that you were insulting him
No, asylum seekers are not "economic migrants", that's a fantasy developed by the daily mail types to justify that they really just hate foreigners.
andymadmak said:
ZedLeg said:
Ayahuasca said:
Gweeds said:
Because as I said yesterday. A country can’t be both a deterrent and a blessing.
Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing. If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.
Make sense?
andymadmak said:
ZedLeg said:
andymadmak said:
That's not surprising. Many of those on the left have always resisted allowing some kind of differentiation between Economic migrants and Asylum seekers. I suppose it allows them more scope to insult and attack those that do see a difference...
I've not attacked or insulted anyone.Economic Migrant literally just means someone who moves for work. This attempt to parlay it into meaning "bad" immigrants is painfully transparent,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff