| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
|
I don't see what the fuss is about, we had all this 'it will never be the same' in the 1980s with the SDP. The only real difference that Wiley can spot is the SDP promised to find a nice space in the centre, whereas Reform triangles opportunistically between left and right. Farage is going to end up as a David Owen with a small band of loyalists. The rest will decide to merge with the Tories. It's a two and a bit party system.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm with you part of the way. I'm with you all of the way in the sense you're probably right. But you've got to come up with an SDP on either flank to make your case. Remember two things:
1. In Britain it happened once before when Labour replaced the Liberals from the flank. And they became a permanent fixture.
2. In the rest of the world it is happening all over the place. Their Nigel Farages are making it all the way to the top, or hovering around waiting to, so why should Britain be any different?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Prince Harry (is that still correct?) may not look upon his father with great favour but when the old chap takes his place in Anglican Heaven, Hal will look back on his reign as a halcyon one compared with what is to come when Queen Katherine accedes to the throne.
I can assure his royal highness he will not be needing a security detachment when he comes to these shores, he will be hunted down by one and conducted to the refurbished Fotheringhay Castle. What is to be his precise role in the new Mary Queen of Scots Experience has not been decided but, if I was him, I wouldn't be signing any long term publishing deals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | 2. In the rest of the world it is happening all over the place. Their Nigel Farages are making it all the way to the top, or hovering around waiting to, so why should Britain be any different? |
The problem for Farage is our maritime status, we actually benefit much more from globalism, free trade, long maritime supply chains, an international rules-based order and so on, much more than the US or Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Then Farage presumably won't go down the tariff route. He is much too fly (and bumptiously self-confident) to be a Trumpist when it doesn't pay to be one. There is nothing in the Reform programme as far as I know (or populism generally) that requires any particular trade policy. Even a tie-up with the EU!
Notice also he has avoided the meltdown suffered by the Canadian and Australian Trumpalikes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Then I don't see what the fuss is about, where is the radicalism?
Last time Reform promised more for the NHS, to ban non-essential immigration, to stop transgender indoctrination in schools, a Royal Commission to look at social care. etc etc.
Look, the MSM was telling me that Georgia Meloni was a neo-fascist, this was life or death, and she got elected. Wiley is still waiting for the apocalypse.
The other disappointment so far is she is not returning my calls.
Reform is going to be a sensible right wingish party that does OK to the general election, Nigel is going to become a national treasure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Then I don't see what the fuss is about, where is the radicalism? |
At last, the penny has dropped. All these populist, neo-fascist, nationalist, ultra-right wing parties are just offering all the usual plus (or, as it may be, minus) whatever it is the current orthodox parties are ignoring when they shouldn't be. [Not Trump, by the way, he is a genuine fruitcake.]
| Last time Reform promised more for the NHS, to ban non-essential immigration, to stop transgender indoctrination in schools, a Royal Commission to look at social care, etc etc. |
I rest my case.
| Look, the MSM was telling me that Georgia Meloni was a neo-fascist, this was life or death, and she got elected. Wiley is still waiting for the apocalypse. |
You rest your case.
| The other disappointment so far is she is not returning my calls. |
But not in her boudoir.
| Reform is going to be a sensible right wingish party that does OK to the general election, Nigel is going to become a national treasure. |
Something like that but he probably won't get a chance at the ultimate prize. He had the misfortune to be first into the field and hence will be well past it if the call comes from a liberal democracy that was first into the field too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
CNN interviewer: Surely even illegal migrants are guaranteed due process under the Fifth Amendment?
President Trump: I'm not sure. That would mean two or three million trials.
CNN's Anderson Cooper: That's not strictly true. It might only be a hearing before a judge and in an immigration court not a proper one.
Mick Harper: It is strictly true, Anderson. A hearing before a judge is a trial, and an immigration court is a court. And, Anderson, I don't know what it's like over there but over here, where we have very similar arrangements, it means 'due process' stretches over years if not a lifetime for each individual illegal migrant and is why everyone in Yerp is madly trying to find ways of removing them without 'due process'.
You see, Anderson, if we rely on 'due process' it means so many illegal migrants are gumming up the works everyone gets the right hump and starts voting for people like... er... Donald Trump. You wouldn't want that, would you, Anderson?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Wiley's view is that folks that are claiming asylum only need to be temporarily protected, they are not full citizens, it's really up to any country to decide what rights you want to grant folks in this situation.
The big mistake, in Wiley's opinion, was we have in effect allowed asylum seekers, free legal representation, in most cases this has created an industry of solicitors disputing every case, often on obscure points of law. Invariably the side with the solictor rather than the immigration case worker will win. Yes, the courts only hear the case if it has merit to it, but solicitors will always find something.
Whilst I reject the idea that you should return folks to a country the asylum seeker has passed through, Wiley does not see why, for example, an asylum seeker who has travelled through a safe country, should still be granted free legal representation on entering this country. This is pretty bizarre.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley's view is that folks that are claiming asylum only need to be temporarily protected, they are not full citizens, it's really up to any country to decide what rights you want to grant folks in this situation. |
Does that include 'no rights'?
| The big mistake, in Wiley's opinion, was we have in effect allowed asylum seekers, free legal representation, in most cases this has created an industry of solicitors disputing every case, often on obscure points of law. Invariably the side with the solictor rather than the immigration case worker will win. Yes the courts only hear the case if it has merit to it, but solicitors will always find something. |
This is true except, from the figures I have seen, 70-80% of asylum-seekers are given 'leave to remain' in some form or other. So it does not seem to be lawyers to 'blame' in this instance but the civil servants processing the forms.
Mick's view is that it is the definition of 'asylum-seeker' that needs reviewing. And probably abolishing. It was designed to cope with defecting Russian ballerinas who are not to be found in great numbers on boats crossing the Channel.
| Whilst I reject the idea that you should return folks to a country the asylum seeker has passed through |
Why? The whole problem--in Britain anyway--is that they have all passed through a 'safe country'.
| Wiley does not see why, for example, an asylum seeker who has travelled through a safe country, should still be granted free legal representation on entering this country. This is pretty bizarre. |
'Free' does not come into it. You will get the same immigration-specialising lawyer whether you pay for him/her or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Wiley's view is that folks that are claiming asylum only need to be temporarily protected, they are not full citizens, it's really up to any country to decide what rights you want to grant folks in this situation. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Does that include 'no rights'? |
They have a right to be temporarily protected, I don't think you are allowed to torture folks, or return them against their will to a country where they would be at risk, but that's about it.
It's the UKs decision to allow asylum seekers certain human rights, somewhat ironically by denying the right to work (is this supposed to be a deterrent, or are we protecting the jobs of other migrants and nationals?), we jack up the total bill as we then have to pay for total housing costs and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
| Whilst I reject the idea that you should return folks to a country the asylum seeker has passed through |
Why? The whole problem--in Britain anyway--is that they have all passed through a 'safe country'.
|
You will never get agreement for this from other countries unless you rejoin the EU. When we were, we tried this under the Dublin agreement. It didn't work. I see no point in going backwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| They have a right to be temporarily protected |
That's not as easy as it used to be now t'northern folk have access to this internet thingy.
| I don't think you are allowed to torture folks |
You mean more than what they've gone through getting here?
| or return them against their will to a country where they would be at risk |
Have you thought this through? If it is against their will, where are you going to send them? No country I know of will accept them. Unless it's Rwanda or Costa Rica. As to 'being at risk', if they are then we should granting them asylum, surely?
| but that's about it. It's the UK's decision to allow asylum seekers certain human rights, somewhat ironically by denying the right to work (is this supposed to be a deterrent, or are we protecting the jobs of other migrants and nationals?), we jack up the total bill as we then have to pay for total housing costs and so on. |
I can see you haven't thought any of it through!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| 'Free' does not come into it. You will get the same immigration-specialising lawyer whether you pay for him/her or not. |
If the asylum seeker can afford their own legal representation, so be it. I just don't see why tax payers should be paying for folks that have come through safe countries to our shores, we basically have a fair process, I don't see why we should then pay for folks to have solicitors and barristers appealing decisions when they did not need to be here in the first place. If solicitors or barristers want to work pro bono, so be it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
I can see you haven't thought any of it through! |
I cant see why Asylum seekers should not be required to be available for work in areas where we have shortages of labour, eg fruit pickers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
