US Election results

You honestly think people’s main immediate concern in March/April 2020 was Brexit, not Covid? Lockdown drove the largest GDP fall on record at nearly 20% in the quarter April-June 2020 (though subsequently recovered) and Covid plus the Ukrainian War cutting off Russian oil, pushed up cost of living globally. Brexit might have subsequently made itself felt, but in the months after Brexit it was Covid that was the main political issue.

Can you point to a government that is not corrupt?

Italy can introduce the law as it applies to their vessels. It won't apply to eg Germany.

That and illegal push backs, which are likely a result of EU wide policy are what has contributed to a 60% drop in numbers.

I'm not really getting your post which seems a bit circular in reasoning. It seems a game changer now that Trump is in the US and the EU is approaching migration differently, Aus has for a while

It really does leave the UK as alone in implementing the policy Starmer is focusing on. Do you see the issue with jurisdiction from the immigration chief in the pp?

The EU will do what it can to stop people arriving across their borders, and I have given you examples of that, they are tough measures. Once people are in there's not much incentive to stop those people moving on to the UK

Thanks!
I guess I don't want to debate the law as such (and we might agree anyway). But if the argument is "the rest of the EU is getting hardline, we need to as well or we will be an outlier", you need to know what hardline is and have a definition that covers the actions of all the other countries. By your example, I suspect that Italy might well be the outlier itself, because of where it is (Switzerland can say it will sink boats coming to Switzerland but that won't mean much). Either you have a unified EU policy (eg to get tough on criminal gangs) in which case its a question of whether the UK should join. Or you have individual countries doing their own thing (in which case the UK by definition isn't an outlier. And the definition of hardline becomes much vaguer).

I agree that the UK can't successfully tackle the criminal gangs on its own. That's why it would need to work at least with the rest of the EU. If they aren't willing to do that, as you suggest they wouldn't be, then I would argue they aren't actually that hardline on immigration. In which case, being an outlier and at least trying to tackle gangs within our own borders won't be as successful but is still worth doing.

I do know a handful of people who voted for Trump, range from millionaire landowner to poor as anything and struggling to feed their families. They do seem to have one thing in common they've never left the states (except military duty). There's a certain ignorance about the rest of the world so how they are impacted by the war in Ukraine passes them by aside from giving them a lot of money.

They all think that money would be better spent on Americans. Food prices have risen and still are. I've seen comments about the government lying about inflation coming down because prices are still rising.

It's almost a special kind of ignorance that can't see how the outside world affects them, they just come to everyone else's aid. Benevolent overlords.

Abortion rights - Bible belt, strong Christian areas do not agree with Abortion it's abhorrent and shouldn't happen. Yes women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want children. It shocks me how much that view is prevalent even from non practicing Christians.

It's not being thick or a bigot in the people I know it's just ignorance of the wider world. I should probably mention a few didn't want trump but he was the republican so they voted for a republican not for Trump as such

The law has been criticised but you asked what hardline policy they are using, so I've provided the info, and the illegal pull backs.

I said earlier Australia had tough policy but Italy / the EU has been able to do similar level with different geography and location

I doubt we'd do the same here, my post was because you asked for examples.

But again, we will be the outlier with Starmer's approach and as others get really tough we'll see that reflected in higher numbers and deaths

I know people that work (or used to work) in the fishing industry. Most of them are very much NOT pro immigration at all. But if you made laws saying that people weren't allowed to come to the rescue of someone drowning (which you would need to do) that's a terrible thing to order people. Unless you have been out at sea on a small boat when the wind is up I think its hard to understand just how terrible.

Online isn't real life though. We are all online now. But for all you know I could be a teenager causing trouble, a Russian troll, someone trying to push you further to the right by screaming that you are "fascist scum who deserves to die", or just a mentally ill person. I like having discussions online (clearly) but you can't make direct judgements about what most people think about you/your beliefs from what you see on forums.

We will still get people crossing as people flow to the easiest country, this information spreads pretty quickly and people profit from that

It's 60% down not 100% and via the Med is not the only route to the UK

And I have just given you two examples of their policy so no running around shouting is necessary

Two main things - illegal pull backs and new laws so more people are not saved in the Med

Meloni has got numbers down by 60%

I'd say the our main comparators EU, Aus and US are now more aligned on hardline policy now Trump is in and the EU is shifting

Just to add, if being "hardline" from the EU meant having completely solid borders, and not letting anyone illegal through then actually being the outlier would be fine because we wouldn't be getting anyone coming across the channel anyway. If that same strategy didn't work, then being the outlier would still be a good idea because being the only one not doing a failing strategy is a good thing.
That sounds flippant. as I said the UK and EU need to cooperate really. But "other countries are being hardline, we need to as well" doesn't make sense if you don't know what hardline means (running around shouting aaargh immigrants won't help but looks good).

@EasternStandard what does "hardline" for the EU mean?

No conflation here.

I am fine with separating out migration and usually do.

At this point it seems unnecessary as I assume people know the detail of what is being discussed

This.

The conflation is deliberate.

concentrating resources to break up the people smuggling gangs, hunting down the people profiting (not just the foot soldiers) and punishing them severely.

This isn't boring it's not feasible.

However, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Saunders, who was chief immigration officer for ports, said "unfortunately what the prime minister is trying to do is not feasible".

The UK would only be able to prosecute and jail people smugglers "in the UK and the majority of people smugglers are actually based in the Middle East and Turkey", Mr Saunders said.

When you say 'hunting down people profiting' what is your jurisdiction?

The UK is the only comparable country only using 'smash the gangs'.

We really are the outlier now the US, EU and Aus are going hardline. Why would you want to be that outlier?

Why would anyone want to be that? No other country will use only that method. They would find the results overwhelming.

But 'the immigration issue' conflates the Channel boat-people with folk being resentful about Poles 'taking their jobs'. Which hardly helps to have an honest conversation about either.

Link didn't work!

https://youtube.com/shorts/VVU7pYq3WHw?si=3J6PhBJ1T9pXQIN4

I know the conversation has moved on, and don't know if this has already been mentioned, but am reading on Twitter about the effectiveness of this ad campaign which shows Kamala promising state funded sex change surgery for all transgender prisoners...
www.youtube.com/embed/VVU7pYq3WHw

I agree @biscuitandcake

The UK will have to bite a few bullets in order to tackle the immigration issue.

Sadly Labour are burying their head in the sand. It's no better than the fire-stoking Trump and Farage are doing

Brexit was immediately overtaken by Covid. It was inevitable that corruption would occur in Covid when rules in place to prevent it were set aside to deal with the immediate crisis

Fuck no. Brexit hasn't been overtaken by anything. Corruption is not inevitable. Not all politicians are the same.

Australia's geography is very very different to the UK though. But also, they do still take in asylum seekers and immigrants. Just on their own terms. In the UK taking immigration seriously might involve:

1. concentrating resources to break up the people smuggling gangs, hunting down the people profiting (not just the foot soldiers) and punishing them severely. The organised crime involved is off the scale now and some of the people benefitting are just evil. That would involve money spent and cooperation with other EU countries
2. Actually sorting out the chaos in the home office and processing applications for asylum in a timely manner. At the moment the asylum system is deliberately tortuous and byzantine. This means that it takes longer to grant people asylum which sounds good but those people are still there in the UK (just unable to work etc) and so are all the people with no rights to asylum (because their applications haven't been rejected either). At the moment people are actively incentivised to break the rules and abscond or work illegally.
3. Cooperating with the EU re returning people who cross the channel illegally. That would require something in return though such as taking in a certain number of asylum seekers from the EU.
4. Opening up a legal channel for some asylum seekers - currently there isn't one which means the only way people can claim it is to come illegally. At least if we were taking people in on our own terms it wouldn't just be the people most physically capable or most willing to take risks that was the main criteria. And it would be much easier to argue that people crossing the channel had come illegally if there was any alternative method.

The first two options are boring. And the second two options are controversial. But politicians have been talking about "Australia" for years to try to sound tough but they haven't actually done anything.

I'm talking about on the average forum......the dominating consensus has to be an unquestioned 'progressive' one, complete with all of the predicatable articles of faith...and god forbid anyone should question any of it, or even show an understanding of why some people vote for right wing candidates or policies.

It is very toxic and so much animosity, and downright hatred, on show. And this is from the people who claim to be the good guys. I contribute to another forum, and if anyone dares question any of the Left/Progressive edicts then you are name called, shamed, bullied, censured.......It is really ugly, and all rooted in emotion.

People are permanently angry and incapable of a reasoned discussion. It always has to be made personal. And so much moral righteousness.

Not really. Italy have recently decreased the numbers across the Med dramatically using a couple of policies, have you seen what they are?

The EU, US and Aus will have different approaches but all of them will be hardline.

Australia 'taking immigration issues seriously' is a whole different reality to Europe.

Why?

Because actual distance and geography.

Australia take immigration issues very seriously and have done for over a decade.

No one will vote that out now, they know what it is to deal with border security in a way that people just won't change.

@ItsFunToBeAVampire I meant to say I agree about the gender stuff! Its madness that so many on the left has decided that this is going to be the mad hill they want to die on.