To ask what you think about Starmer’s plan to stop the boats?

[WhereIsMyJumper]

I cannot see how his ‘one in one out’ plan is going to help. I also can’t understand why France is cooperating with us. What’s the incentive?

If you don’t agree with this plan, what would your answer be?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg6x4g6gg6t

Not much has happened to Aus, they are still part of the 1951 Convention and pretty much everyone votes to keep the policy in place, whichever party runs.

By most metrics it is a tiny number:
as a percentage of uk population (0.03%)
as a percentage of worldwide refugees (0.055%)
as a percentage of refugees in Europe (0.2%)
as a percentage of UK net migration (4.83%)

I have taken in refugees in the past, and will again when my daughter goes off to university when we have the space. I also volunteer to mentor refugee children in high schools. In the meantime, I’m happy that my higher rate taxes support them until they are able to work.

There's nothing to explain. Ad I've said a million times on this thread: it doesn't matter what he has or hasn't achieved, what he can or can't achieve or even whether anything he says is viable.

That's not the point.

The point is that people are feeling angry and deprived and will vote for the person that hasn't yet screwed them over. He is electable by dint of not having been in power and not having had the power to let people down yet.

People felt let down by Conservative so they voted Labour to get them out. They didn't vote for a Labour government. Reform are the next party to vote out the existing party.

Australia doesn’t send them home
Correct, we don’t UNLESS it is robustly proved their claim for asylum is not founded.

But also, Australia has had some of its offshore detention centres ruled as illegal and had to pay 70 million dollars to the refugees it illegally incarcerated in them. The UNHCR has ruled against Australia in two landmark rulings in January. It said “A state cannot escape its human rights responsibilities when outsourcing asylum protection to another State
Yes, there was that glitch. That has been rectified. Nauru is now not an indefinite detention centre. We no longer have indefinite detention centres. They are now ‘processing centres’. If the claim for asylum is proved then they leave the processing centres and are sent to their new permanent home - not a detention centre, a country which happens to be an island, in which they are free, not detained. If the claim for asylum is determined to not be valid, then they are returned to where they came from.

In short, Australia manages by breaching international law
That’s a matter of opinion. See above, it is claimed modifications were enacted that this is not the case. Lawyers can argue the nuances of it all till the cows come home. If needed, I suspect further loophole workarounds would be enacted if ever needed. Irrespective, and? it’s not as though Australia has been shut down🤣🤣🤣 Sometimes things are worth getting a smack on the hand, because that’s all it would ever be anyway realistically and all political parties know this is what their population demands.

I'm not commenting on the policies or whether they were implemented or successful. I'm saying exactly the same as you: people will vote for what they want to hear.

People don't want immigration when there is a squeezed pot. If reputable politicians don't grasp this issue, it goes further up peoples agenda and people get angry and vote angry.

I agree. While we have homeless people who are long term residents, probably born here, we should be concentrating on helping them, especially families with children and other vulnerable groups.

Back in reality, an 8 million a day hotel bill is not a tiny number by any stretch of the imagination.

So you are ok with the billions being spent on this shitshow?

No one is happy about the money spent on x ch migration nor the numbers entering via this means.

But so far, no one can come up with any practical means to stop it.

Just this ridiculous Australia nonsense, without saying which handy off shore Island we could send them ALL too.

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

Andrea Jenkyns doesn't mind immigration camps on her doorstep......

Greenland has been mentioned on previous threads

Exactly. People don't want to hear about it on mn bizarrely. They don't want the UK to follow for whatever reason.

If this set up Starmer has tried to sell in doesn't work then it's easy pickings for a politician to say we'll do what Aus does and get in at the next GE.

The Tory government could have saved a lot of money spent on Rwanda if they had listened to Jenrick

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/10/robert-jenrick-migrant-returns-advice-finally-heeded-labour-pm

They need to be put on a coach as soon as they are brought here, taken to the airport and removed back to France as would happen if they attempted to get into the UK via an airport. If they are genuine asylum seekers they would seek asylum in the first safe country they arrived in. They are paying 1000s to get here... where have they got that money from if they are all pleading poverty? The Home Office posting up lists of 'This is what you will get' doesnt help either. Asylum claims and appeals taking forever also makes it worth their while to come here. I am sure the usual mob will come on here shouting about racism but this is an absolute disaster and people are sick of it.

Has anyone asked Greenland?

No thought not, they aren't even a country....

"Do what Australia does" whats that exactly? where would migrants be sent?

I must have asked this a 1000x yet no answers.

Its just another soundbite, meaningless in a European context, even the far right in Austria and Italy have all failed to stem migration..... and yet its all soooooo easy "Do what Australia does"

Oh my!!

France would refuse any plane permission to land.... they'd then be flown back to the UK.

@Alexandra2001 Just this ridiculous Australia nonsense, without saying which handy off shore Island we could send them ALL too

Here’s the thing though. If you do this, your ‘ALL’ will be a much smaller number😊. You won’t need to be looking to deal with the number you currently are. So, you won’t be looking for a solution for the number you currently are. You will still have the issue but the scale will be so much smaller. It’s amazing how the number will decreases when people know that even if their claim is processed as genuine, they are still never going to set foot in the country. That’s what causes the biggest reduction. So, it’s then easier to find the solution for where to put a much smaller ALL. Your government know this. They are not this dumb. It’s just not a convenient truth when they are not actively trying to solve the problem but brushing it off as unsolvable and gullible people go ‘okay’.

Nope. As I said previously, we need to continue to clear the backlog of applications so those who are granted asylum can work and become tax payers. We need to review the contracts awarded to Tory Cronies to manage the accommodation of asylum seekers. We need to look at net migration figures and factor in what an appropriate number is. We need to set up safe legal routes for people who wish to claim asylum. But while we hear people whining “stop the boaaaaats” and that becomes a political issue, none of the rest of it is being done, and the amount we spend will not reduce.

And how exactly would someone stop a plane landing? KS needs to get tough and make it clear to France that this IS what will happen unless they do more to intercept and stop this crazy situation.

Australia send them back to their country of origin. I would have thought that was the obvious thing to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_Australia

9 billion is 0.00075% of the total amount the government spends in the U.K. By that metric it is a tiny number.

You do know planes need permission to land?

I understand this... BUT any country willing, would need to accept ALL migrants initially, that would means many 1000s, possibly 10s of '000's.

If its just 1 or 2% as with Rwanda, the calculation of the remaining 98% would be "i'll take my chances" especially if they then can easily get into the black economy....

Robert Jenrick, a fairly hardline Tory said this:

“We should be willing to make highly meaningful concessions such as offering to take one asylum seeker that has been successfully granted asylum in the French system in return for one illegal migrant that we return to them

"Or indeed more than one. It is highly probable that the certainty of return to France would quickly break the business model of the smugglers"

The UNCHR making a ruling is a matter of opinion now, is it? Not an old ruling, it pertains to the current process. That’s a wild take.

Australian are happy to have spent 12 billion on this so far, are they?

Yes the number is tiny.