Well at least that’s one thing we agree on!
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 20:29
It's certainly an option. However it was proposed by France and rejected by the UK because the government thought that creating a centre would attract more people to apply.
Their strategy instead was to create a 'hostile environment' to make the UK less attractive.
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 20:07
No but it will weed out the genuine claims from the non genuine ones.
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 20:06
Do you think having a processing centre in France would encourage more people to come?
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 20:03
At the minute anyone can come here by boat and no one knows if they were true asylum seekers escaping war torn countries or economic migrants. The tax payer has to fund all of them until it’s decided if they are genuine.
If they had a processing centre in France then the genuine ones will be brought here. There will be no need for them to risk there lives and it also means the help will go to those most in need
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 19:57
You seem to have skipped over the part where it becomes reality.
We can all say things. We vote for people because we want what they say to happen. How are Reform going to make it happen?
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 19:52
What exactly do you not understand by what I said? If you arrive in a boat you never get to stay here. What more explanation is there?
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 19:51
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 19:50
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 19:43
The best deterrent would be that if you cross in a boat you’ll never get to stay here end of.
Can you explain how?
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 19:39
My point was if you want people to stop coming here because they're looking for a better life, then it makes sense to make their life better at home
No, it’s not up the British tax payer to make economic migrants home county better, it’s up to their own government.
The best deterrent would be that if you cross in a boat you’ll never get to stay here end of.
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 19:34
Well it is our problem as we're paying to process them and deport them.
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 19:33
Not a secret and not our problem!
Quoting RedWhite
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 19:30
People are fleeing their countries for many different reasons for example, climate change, persecution and poverty.
We all know a percentage of those coming from France are economic migrants. That isn't a secret.
Quoting Maitri108
RedWhite ·
03/05/2025 19:26
Ahh so is it poverty they are fleeing or war? The former is an economic migrant not an asylum seeker, therefore they wouldn’t qualify.
Quoting ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 17:49
I thought it was our concern because apparently we don't want people coming here who are fleeing poverty.
Quoting Maitri108
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm ·
03/05/2025 17:48
Don't care. Not our problem. Do we have to feed the world ?
Quoting ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 17:38
No problem at all. What's the solution to people fleeing to Europe because of poverty?
Quoting Maitri108
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm ·
03/05/2025 17:31
You want us, in our country, to address poverty, in countries around the world? No. No thank you. Entirely unrealistic, and disingenuous.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 16:07
As I stated above, you don't believe in addressing poverty or climate change. Therefore what is your solution to people fleeing their countries because of those issues?
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 16:05
No. My point was that I don't want the UK to waste £11 billion on foreign climate aid when it will have no effect on climate due to China and therefore will not affect illegal immigration.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 16:04
I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'll rephrase:
You want people to stop coming to the UK in small boats. If people are fleeing their countries because of issues such as global warming and poverty then surely it makes sense to help tackle those issues.
You don't agree with that, therefore I'm asking what your solutions are to stopping people fleeing their countries.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 15:58
Ok. If pouring billions of pounds of UK taxpayer money into jobs and infrastructure abroad(into just countries that cannot afford that themselves obviously) and sacrificing the winter fuel payments of our pensioners prevented global warming and therefore directly prevented illegal immigration into the UK thus saving us taxpayers money I would see the point of your argument.
But China. So your argument is not really a particularly strong argument as your approach has absolutely no chance of success and is bad for the UK.
I can rephrase my PP as a statement if you prefer and if you couldn't see the obvious point I was making simply because it was phrased as a question. But I'm sure I won't need to.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 15:52
You're answering my question with more questions. We can't have a discussion if we just ask each other questions. How about you answer my question first and then I'll answer yours.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 15:42
How is pouring money (£11 billion) into foreign climate aid of benefit when China has got into a bit of a habit of building coal fired power stations. But we have stopped winter fuel payments for our own pensioners?
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 15:34
We're returning to Reform's favourite and only subject. Let's take a closer look at that.
You don't want people fleeing to the UK and some of the reasons people flee are global warming and poverty.
It makes sense to me to help tackle those problems so that people don't flee. However you don't want to tackle those problems yet you want people to stop coming here.
How does that work?
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 14:53
Assuming they live in this country and are here legally obviously.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 14:41
Yes, I believe we both agreed on that.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 14:35
Those sorts of people I don't particularly have an issue with supporting with my taxes.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 14:33
That's fair enough and remember it goes two ways. If you become disabled, lose your home or can't afford to eat, don't expect others to care about you.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 14:18
Well I wouldn't say I care about "everyone" in society, if we are being pedantic.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 14:04
It seems you agree that it's possible to care about everyone in society as well as yourself so perhaps we should move on.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 14:00
Well it is what I was arguing. But no problem re your confusion.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 13:57
That isn't what you were arguing but I'm not going to waste my time when you don't remember your own argument.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 13:54
I didnt say people dont want to pay tax to help others. I said that people will have their own family as priority. I'm sure you will agree with that statement too.
Edited
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 13:51
I believe you were saying that most people don't want to pay tax to help others as everyone is out for themselves. I said that it's possible to care about others as well as yourself and you said that's obvious. So it seems we agree.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 13:46
I know what you are saying. It's a statement of the obvious. Of course you can care about others as well as yourself. I haven't said otherwise. I'm just saying there is a natural pecking order in priorities.
Edited
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 13:43
I was saying that it's possible to care about others as well as yourself. If you're confused about the conversation, perhaps you should read it back.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 13:30
Well obviously everyone puts themselves and their families first. Didn't JD.Vance have some theological argument with Rory Stewart about priorities. Family, community, fellow citizens, the rest of the world. In that order.
What's your point? Are you trying to say that's the wrong order?
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 13:27
I believe you were trying to tell me that everyone puts themselves first unless you're Jesus.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 13:24
I don't understand what point you are trying to make to me? At the start of this thread I replied to someone saying that they wanted to pay more tax. I don't as obviously more money in my pocket would mean a better life for me and my family (being more of a priority than foreign climate aid for example). I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax at all. I'm just saying I pay a lot of tax now for shit servces and I'd rather not pay more thanks especially if it's for stuff like the £11 billion foreign climate aid. So I don't know why you've decided to tell me about worthy societies. I think you're arguing a different point to me.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 13:17
You're talking about a very different society to the one we have. I've lived in countries where family is paramount and you don't bother about anyone else.
They don't have any support systems and you are responsible for your parents as they age. You pay their bills and medical care because no one else will. It's very expensive and stressful.
You don't have to be Jesus to want to make sure everyone is taken care off and that includes you and your family. Some want to live in a caring society which is why they set up charities.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 13:11
It is true. Obviously considering your own family as of paramount importance doesn't mean that you can't consider other people. It's not a zero sum game. It's just if you had to choose one or the other would you want your own child to have a happy life or the child of a stranger. And as I said, unless you are Jesus, I dare say your own child is your priority.
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
03/05/2025 12:55
That's not true but we tend to think others think like us.
If that were true we wouldn't have a welfare state or NHS or public services because we wouldn't want to pay for them.
Even Reform supporters think about others. They may use dehumanising language like "boat people" or "illegals" but they keep talking about helping British people first and give examples of the homeless.
They're not all homeless so they must be thinking about other people. It is possible.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
03/05/2025 08:17
Most people vote according to their own beliefs and circumstances. They are unlikely to vote to the detriment of their own lives if there was a clear choice. That's human nature and it's not a bad thing. I care more about my own life and the lives of my family than I do the boat people or anyone else. I am sure that you are exactly the same if you were honest. It would.be weird if it was the opposite (unless you are Jesus of course, in which case apologies).
And that applies to voters of any party Labour and Conservative too (I'm not sure why you have decided I am a Reform supporter from any of my posts, incidentally).
Quoting Jackrussellsaremad
Maitri108 ·
02/05/2025 21:34
This is exactly the point I'm making, this I'm all right Jack attitude.
Who cares about the elderly, the vulnerable, the sick, the poor, the homeless.
It's interesting that Reform supporters talk about the British helping the British - to many that means helping yourself.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
Quoting Maitri108
Jackrussellsaremad ·
02/05/2025 21:29
Well, my life will be better, personally. We can only walk in our own shoes in life.
Quoting Menopausalsourpuss
Maitri108 ·
02/05/2025 21:16
I understand why you don't want to pay tax. Do you think by paying less tax, as Reform are promising, that society will be better?
Quoting Maitri108
Menopausalsourpuss ·
02/05/2025 21:13
Masses of quangos, net zero (which in imo is mad as we just make things in other countries and ship them here which uses MORE CO2, and we even import wood pellets from US while sorting on loads of coal etc)., putting loads of small cos out of business as we have one of the highest energy costs in the world, paying landlords to rent to illegal immigrants, paying Mauritius to give them land we own whilst ignoring the indigenous people, paying benefits to foreigners, paying 5million healthy people to sit on benefits whilst importing yet more low skilled people. The list goes on and on and on.
Maitri108 ·
02/05/2025 20:56
@Menopausalsourpuss
What madcap schemes have Labour wasted money on?
By madcap schemes do you mean public services?