Stopping the boats is easy...

[titbumwillypoo]

All we have to do is abandon the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, the UN, the G7, NATO and the WTO. Then we can break maritime law and start sinking the boats. Obviously we'd have to proscribe the RNLI and change the job description of the coast guard to encourage people who want to sink boats to sign up. The fishermen will be fine.
Once we start with this deterrent we can start kicking out other undesirables. I'd start with the students. Coming over here using our universities as a gateway to benefits street. So we ban them, no more student visas. We might see a few universities close but no great loss, you learn more in the school of life.
After that take away access to ALL benefits for anyone not born here. Don't care if you've always worked and paid your taxes you're not ENGERLISH so less Dr Khalid more Dr Callum.
Obviously once we start making Britain Great again there may be a couple of teensy issues. Food might cost a lot more because the lefty EU might not want to trade with a nation that wants to isolate itself and kill innocent people. It'll be fine because there will be 100% employment because instead of benefits you'll have to do your 60 hours on the food farm to earn your pound credits.
Family will be legally obliged to look after any living relative as there won't be anyone left to do it because we deported them all. And obviously the NHS was full of loony lefties who went round caring for people instead of focusing on what really mattered, which is profit.
They're just a couple of the benefits of stopping the boats, because who cares about the bigger picture or unintended consequences eh?
Giving up our place on the world stage is a small price to pay for stopping a handful of people coming from countries we benefited from or bombed isn't it?

As for suggestions again, use humanitarian visas and stop arrivals.

Checks and control then.

Leave the UN and international obligations

I posted this on other thread:

This disgusting individual was turned down for asylum in France. Who - who - let him stay in Britain and allowed a known schizophrenic with convictions to be wandering the country?

And become Russia’s pawn in a matter of decades.

Who has spoken against checks and controls? You need a viable implementation plan.

That's all well and good until /if we ever are unlucky to get a leader of Hitler's ilk into power again.
You do realise that the ECHR was created after WW2 to have some protection against war atrocities and rogue leaders?! You'd seriously want us to leave all that and leave yourself completely open to misuse if it ever went tits up again (for want of a better expression?!)
The mind boggles, it really does.

How?

Do you think Hitler would have been stopped by something like the ECHR? He managed perfectly adeptly to halt democracy in Germany.

If we did. What's to stop them just leaving the ECHR and passing domestic legislation on their own. There are good things in the ECHR, but I don't want it being used to open the floodgates or stop deportations.

You can’t do that obviously with the current system. See Australia.

Why? You’re stuck because you keep asking for plans but can’t face up to the failing current system.

I’d rather be stuck down a salt mine/be issued with the Party’s approved winter coat/ live in allocated housing than be a sitting duck as 30 million ill-educated men from third-world countries invade us. I’d rather be singing The Red Flag than be deafened by the call to prayer. In the future I’d rather dd were tilling the fields or queuing for a loaf than trudging along in a burqa.

We’re a bunch of women in the UK who can reshape asylum / international laws to work for women here instead, why not?

Make it work for us. Not this straining, dangerous version which is mad for nearly all.

30 million?! Are you just plucking random figures out of thin air or do you have a source for that?
Church bells aren't suddenly going to be eradicated either, we'll still hear them (love hearing them) and if there are some mosques - so what.

Nonsense. I fully agree the current system is a failure. The difference between is that my priority is the genuine asylum seekers whom it is failing. I agree that phoney asylum seekers are also a problem. The acute spanner in the works is the backlog.

Others have different priorities, but we agree there is a big problem.

Several ‘changes’ have been righteously suggested by PP ignorant of the fact that Labour have already implemented them.

Others would isolate us yet further internationally at a time when our relations with Russia are at a historic low. How many PP are aware that Putin has withdrawn his ambassador and threatened to bomb British factories? We need to maintain strong international ties. Breaking UN treaties, withdrawing from the ECHR and even withdrawing from NATO per PP’s suggestion is not the way to go.

Offshoring remains popular with those who seem to have forgotten that Supreme Court decision I cited above, a mere three years ago. I am sure Reform appreciate the short memories.

So, staying within the boundaries established by the Supreme Court, I ask again for a viable plan. Obviously Parliament can pass laws but we may assume leaders of all parties, who have a better understanding of the political calculus than we do, know this also.

Obviously she is beyond reason.

Before the rest, why aren’t the victims here also a priority?

They are usually women and girls, do they not feature at all?

Of course they are also a priority. Every ruined life counts equally. Every dead child counts equally. Every dead woman counts equally.

You’ve been banging on about Australia, others about Denmark. We do almost everything the Danes do, with the exception if offshoring and the PR campaign.

The offshoring aspect of the Australian system similarly appears to be off the table. Restricting asylum applications to those on a humanitarian pathway appears to many legal experts to contravene the UN Convention on Human Rights. The UN and major human rights groups are fighting Australia.

Britain needs all the friends it can get right now, as Putin is ramping up.

Politicians and civil servants haven’t been losing their hair and their sleep over this for lack of knowledge about Denmark and Australia.

Yes, I want viable ideas from the critics.

You’re banging on about your own stuff.

If you don’t want replies, don’t ask.

On what will happen in Australia that’s incorrect too. It’s going the other way, all parties are going to crack down on temporary visas as a route to asylum.

We can just leave the refugee convention. We can't go on with this. Detain and deport.

We don't need to take anyone in we don't want to

It’s nonsense it can’t change.

According to an international Gallup poll, 900 million people wish to emigrate from parts of the world, mostly to US and Canada, but 25-30 million state the UK as their preferred destination.

if every single one of those cites “asylum” as their reason for arriving here, is that still a “nothing can be done” because of “international laws”?

I have requested implementable solutions. You haven’t explained how to make your ideas, you know, work.