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

Sure but it's the left that name call.

France gives 45 euros per migrant and they can have accommodation too, usually in ..... guess what? Hotels.

ID cards and France's layers of bureaucracy make working in the black economy a lot harder plus they have armies of people checking that you have the correct papers.... we got rid of this.

Only read the thread title... totally not interested in arguments.

I think it's an idea worth trying. Let's see how it plays out. Likely to make much more progress and actually get implemented, unlike the Conservatives idea to deport to Rwanda, and far more humane than deportations to truly random countries (what USA is doing right now).

We can say no. We just voted out something more similar to Aus. It probably requires everything that do but people actually have to vote for it

Exactly. And unfortunately we are run by a human rights lawyer to whom following international rules and regulations (that are often no longer fit for purpose) and looking worthy on the international stage is more important than the wellbeing of the UK. It makes him feel virtuous and good you see, while in fact he is a traitor to the country.

France and the rest of of Europe is "shit scary"?

I love it. "Only read the thread title...totally not interested in arguments.."

And then took the time to write an argument for other people to read. Presumably expecting people will be interested in your argument.

Funny.

Who knew Richi Sunak was a human rights lawyer???

He failed over 3 years to send back a single migrant to any where & over saw the highest number of crossings in a single year - 2022 @ 44,000+

I doubt you were so concerned then....

Are you advocating that the UK breaks international law and goes back on treaties it signed?

How do you think that might work out?

"Traitor to the country" .... listen to yourself.

I’ve asked over several threads what people think Reform can and will do.

Many of us have also pointed out that it’s the Reform leadership and their core voters who gave us this issue with their stupid Brexit.

If someone burnt my house down I wouldn’t be letting them anywhere near my new house.

Agreed. I love the idea that Syria and Afghanistan border Rwanda and have similar values and culture. And the idea that people should stop at the nearest safe country is a handy geographical get out to say we would never have to take anyone. I'm in a deep dive on Holocaust research at the moment, reading a lot about the efforts people made in the late 1930s to get out of Nazi controlled Europe and the similar sounding noises people made in the UK and USA to stop them.

Every single person on the planet is just as entitled to a safe, hygienic and thriving environment as anyone else. Being born on the wrong side of a line on a map should not disqualify you from that. I'd like to see far, far more effort and money put into stopping the criminal, exploitative gangs...what actually happens if / when they are caught? What are the penalties? And an international, United Nations backed global.plan to handle the refugees. People who are trained as doctors don't actually want to leave their home and family and everything they know to come and work as a cleaner or sit in a mouldy hotel room waiting for a bureaucrat to stamp a piece of paper. Economic migrants are doing what Norman Tebbit told people to do in the 70-80s..get on a bike and find work, opportunity. Do your best for your family. I find it hard to condemn that.

You know I'm talking about Keir Starmer. That is actually who we are run by. Your hero!

Yes I think any international law that no longer works for the UK needs to be looked at. Obviously. Laws change all the time particularly international law. And also get used for the wrong purposes.

Of course I was concerned when the Conservatives failed to send people back! Most of us have been worrying about immigration for years. Obviously.

How far would you go with this sentiment? Anyone who wishes to be here can be?

Here in Aus, we had a horrific boat problem. People would travel half way around the world to pay tens of thousands to get in a rickety, overcrowded boat to cross the open sea, to claim asylum. It was appealing because of government and charity supports are generous, and ability to bring the whole, extended family over legally once their residency was confirmed. Mostly economic refugees. These took spaces from genuine asylum seekers sitting in camps for years because caps were reached by illegal arrivals.

A lot of deterrents, and, shamefully, human rights violations were tried. In the end, the only thing that stopped the boats was a decree that no one coming by boat would be allow to settle in Australia. Our less fortunate neighbours got aid money to settle them. The numbers reduced to a trickle. There's no appeal anymore.

Well yes. But countries do have borders. And presumably should be able to chose which of those hundreds and thousands of qualified doctors can come and live here?

Funny how MN was not awash with concern a few years ago....

Not my hero, i don't like him.

But he is looking for solutions that don't involve acts of war, like send Marines to Northern France, which is Reforms solution or breaking International Law which is yours.

Changing International law is complex and takes years, it does not change all the time and in any case, many countries refuse to take back migrants or are at war....

So what then??

So what did the country do with the asylum seekers? They have to go somewhere. Who would take them?

It’s the ones who arrive by boat and then disappear that we should be worrying about. I’d be bothering less about feeding a few in hostels and concentrating on them

Well I don't know about mumsnet's concerns years ago as I've only been on here for a few years. I dont want to burst your bubble but mumsnet Isn't Actually The Real World.

But I do seem to recall something called "Brexit" was blamed on immigration...

International law can be changed quickly as needed. Or we opt out. Other countries that you might consider reasonable are doing it. That's because they.consider the interests of their own citizens first.

Apologies re Keir Starmer. Who is your fave then? Jezza? Who would you like as PM?

The UK doesn't have a handy Island to send the migrants too and Rwanda would only accept 1% of total numbers crossing.

We could build a camp in the Falklands, i'm surprised no one has suggested that

He hasn’t got a plan. I didn’t vote for that idiot, he’s completely incompetent in every aspect.

I’m beginning to think that this is true

You can follow the responses to this on mn to see why we’re falling behind on this. However next GE might get it over the line.

It said on BBC news it's going to be "one in, one out" up to a maximum of 50 per week.
So, if an average of 750 come in per day (a total average of 3,500 for the week) , we can only send a maximum of 50 back per week?
If so, that's actually 3,500 in, and only 50 back to France 🤔🧐
We would still get an average of 3,450 new illegal immigrants into the UK per week! 🤔🧐
This year alone we've had 21,000 in 26 weeks.
Out of that total we could have only sent back 26 (weeks) x 50 (returned illegal immigrants) = 1,300 sent back to France.

That would actually be 21,000 into the UK, 1,300 back out to France.

So 19,700 would still be here in the UK out of 21,000.

So much for "one in, one out".....

It was 2/3 years ago.

How about answering the question?

What do we do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be deported? which will be the majority.

It's in their pledge book online so feel free to look it up (i make a point of reading all party manifestos before voting and I suggest others do too).

The point isn't really what they would (or wouldn't) do, the point is that people are fed up of feeling like they work hard or broken services and any extra people (migration, refugee, those on benefits) are being lumped into the same group because it doesn't feel like their is enough to go around. Even the most hard line people can accept a Brit on benefits (even if they think they are "scroungers") but where migration is concerned, its physically more mouths to feed.

Add to that that migrants get things that Brits who pay into the purse don't get e.g. migrants get a free dental checkup and treatment within a month. When was the last time you, or your kids, had a free check up? Dentistry is practically privatised in Britain (unless you're a migrant).

The point isn't what Reform are going to do. The point is that unlike the Greens or Libs, they are the only party saying they'd take a hard line and haven't had a go yet.

The more people are told to basically shut up because they're racist and there is no problem, the angrier people get and feel like lashing out by voting for a party that says what they want to hear.

It's like the NHS bus. People think the NHS is fucked and when they contribute to the tax pot and can't get an appointment they think "why are we sending money to EU when I can't get a local health appointment?" so they vote for a slogan saying "let's fund our NHS instead".

It's not even really about migration , it's about:

1. Not feeling like hard work pays off
2. Feeling like someone else is getting something you aren't even though you're contributing and they aren't.

Plus, as you've seen, some people feel unsafe in areas where many migrants have arrived en masse (which again strains services)