Off Topic The Politics Thread

What I have heard him say will bury him. he has resurrected the myth that we will be better off to the tune of 350 million a week when we leave. Every remainer should ask him to explain his arithmetic and then actually ask the question what is the problem with agreeing a figure to pay to be free of our existing obligations. If he is right we can pay that off within 6-8 months in the savings we make. Job done. Sorted. The sooner the better and we can all live in the low tax low regulation he craves.

 

Johnson's latest extravaganza of falsehoods is stunning for its brazenness. Not only does he resurrect the £350m per week lie that not even Farage would endorse, but he goes on to blame pretty much every failing of his own government on our membership of the EU. It's the EU that's forcing the Tories to continue to be the horrible evil ****s that they've always been, apparently.

 

Stroller, I don't think it's fair to tar every Tory with the same brush. Completely agree about Johnson and a great many of those currently residing in Government, but it's not right to put them all into the same bucket. I don't care much for a great many on your side of the political divide, but even I can see that there are a fair few honest, non-vindictive, non-hypocritical, non-bitter and tolerant individuals over there. Not going to get into a naming contest with you, though. I just think you show a surprising intolerance and prejudice towards all those across the divide, which is strange from one that presumably believes himself to be more enlightened than many.

Soz.

Anyway, back to the ensuing absurdity.

 

It's a fair cop, Uber. I fear my post was unduly affected by a surfeit of Guinness. Of course not all Tories are ****s.








Just most of them.

 

Save your pennies

 

I read that before lunch and five minutes later bumped into none other than Ken Clarke, former chancellor and europhile tory in the reception area of our office.

If only Ken was Tory prime minister, a throw back to One Nationism.

 

spot the woman
children
old people

please log in to view this image

 

It's blokes trying to get into Glastonbury, isn't it?

 

Looking forward to seeing how the English react to queuing at Asda in a few years for those essential bathroom items like pot pourri

There could be some outrage and finger pointing with the blame firmly given to the combination of Ryanair, McDonalds and Mrs Trump

 

Don't know where that photo was taken, Kiwi. But, if, for example, the photo is of illegal economic migrants in France trying to get to the UK, then of course they would mainly be younger and male. And they shouldn't be treated as anything other than economic refugees.

It has nothing to do with war refugees trying to avoid being killed or dying of starvation. Yet, some would apply one case to the other and say we shouldn't do the decent thing and help war regugees because there are also economic migrants gathering somewhere else. Don't see the logic there, only the dog whistle trying to get people to agree to turn a blind eye to war refugees because there are also economic refugees elsewhere.

I appreciate some of the war refugees might also be IS terrorists. How many innocent non-IS terrorists should we stop helping, then?

 

We should help as many as the country can afford - in situ

 

Picture was taken in the Hungary / Serbia border in September 2015, with people trying to cross from Serbia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ary-border-as-Isil-could-infiltrate-live.html

As always, context is important.

 

I see Ken Clarke is spreading the gospel after our chat yesterday

 

Indeed. Ta.

 

That's kind of a non-specific platitude, though. Who knows what "the country" can afford. It's not just money (and we're going to have less of that in future, both personally and as a nation if we carry on letting the current crew negotiate our EU departure). For our sense of nationhood and personal worth, can we afford to turn our backs on people we could help? Who wants us to be that sort of country?

In principle, helping people "in situ" (I'm guessing you mean in their own country, or at least, not in ours) seems a good idea, as it stops those IS infiltrators from infiltrating the UK through that route. They'll probably find another way, mind.

History shows us that gathering groups of Syrians (for example) into a secure area somewhere in Syria and then protecting them from those who would harm them doesn't work too well. Their enemies can find them and their protectors might then disperse - resulting in who knows what. By leaving Syria and going to a country where there is still an element of law, they're increasing their chances.

 

Ok, so we're agreed "in situ" is a good idea in principal. In war torn countries, there should be safe areas created, as there is in Jordan for the Syrians. The UN needs to develop some teeth and help create this.

The answer is not to open our doors, except in exceptional circumstances and with careful vetting and monitoring. As I said in an earlier post, it looks likely (it's still early days for the investigation) that young refugees from the Middle East tried to carry out mass murder on the London underground last week. Today, we learn that the UK has one of the highest rates of searches for Islamic State propaganda on the web. The UK, the US and France are the biggest targets for terrorists. We must not be naive about this. The safety of the citizens in the UK, comes before settling migrants that have chosen to leave their country.

 

'Chosen to leave' or 'been forced to flee'? There's a big difference...

 

If there was a another revolution in France, I could see that French citizens might feel the need to flee to the UK.

But Syrians do not flee to the UK. There are neighbouring countries where refuge could be taken. UK is chosen for economic reasons, and a few young refugees feel resentment more than gratitude after coming here

 

Wasn't looking to bring the 'where are they going to' element into the equation. I was simply interested in your statement that people are choosing to leave, and (presumably) not being forced out due to the danger of living in a war zone. You didn't seem to make any distinction between those two very different cases, and seem to be suggesting that the only time we need to bother about helping refugees from a war zone is if the war happens right next door in France.

It's a big old world, mate, and personally I can't just choose to switch off compassion simply because they are further than the nearest border.