Keir Starmer in Berlin to "reset" Brexit

[old man]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Spot on.

Allowing them to work from home was the trigger?

[amateur]

25 minutes ago, old man said:

Allowing them to work from home was the trigger?

No, the rot set in with Blair, but wfh certainly hasn't helped.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

That may well be so, but why is anyone still working from home?

[old man]

1 minute ago, amateur said:

No, the rot set in with Blair, but wfh certainly hasn't helped.

Yep can see that too.

[JohnfromUK]

18 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Would you mind explaining why you feel confident it will work? 

My impression (and it is really only that) is that the (very small in the grand scheme of things) number of people to be sent to Rwanda could have happened.  The 'blockage was here (from 'officials, courts, judiciary') not Rwanda.

I have also heard from various interviews that the idea that it would 'deter' was sound. 

The key thing was to get the information round that IF you landed in the UK without the right paperwork, passport, permissions and via a proper transport means (flight, ferry etc.) then you would possibly be deported to Rwanda - from where there would be no legal possibility of ever getting UK acceptance.

The problem now seems to be partly that the prospective migrants have been brainwashed that by paying all this money (the source of which is a mystery to me with them coming from 'poor' countries) and being welcomed with cash handouts, easy jobs, free housing, free first class health care and all of the other 'land of milk and honey' stories that they believe.

Sorry, can't look up past references at present where I picked these up - but that is my general impression.

EDIT: Having read the thread more fully, I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion.

Edited September 8 by JohnfromUK

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

My impression (and it is really only that) is that the (very small in the grand scheme of things) number of people to be sent to Rwanda could have happened.  The 'blockage was here (from 'officials, courts, judiciary') not Rwanda.

I have also heard from various interviews that the idea that it would 'deter' was sound. 

The key thing was to get the information round that IF you landed in the UK without the right paperwork, passport, permissions and via a proper transport means (flight, ferry etc.) then you would possibly be deported to Rwanda - from where there would be no legal possibility of ever getting UK acceptance.

The problem now seems to be partly that the prospective migrants have been brainwashed that by paying all this money (the source of which is a mystery to me with them coming from 'poor' countries) and being welcomed with cash handouts, easy jobs, free housing, free first class health care and all of the other 'land of milk and honey' stories that they believe.

Sorry, can't look up past references at present where I picked these up - but that is my general impression.

Yes indeed, if only the system had done that part and "got the word out"it might have been the deterrent it could have been.

[Vince Green]

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

There was a time when Civil Servants were reasonably efficient and served the Government of the day. Far too woke and breaking the Civil Service Code. A few sackings of the top Civil Servants might serve to bring the rest of them back into line. They are a disgrace. Lions lead by donkeys.

The only thing I disagree about with you there is the number of sackings required . I think it's more than  a few and the rot runs deep into the fabric of the organisation. 

[Yellow Bear]

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

I think it's more than  a few and the rot runs deep into the fabric of the organisation. 

Probably due to t.he old "Jobs for the Boys/Girls"  network that is endemic in public services.

[Vince Green]

Just now, Yellow Bear said:

Probably due to t.he old "Jobs for the Boys/Girls"  network that is endemic in public services.

Many years ago my cousin worked as a civil servant in a job centre on Merseyside.  She was an Executive Officer so reasonably high up.

On practically her first day there she was told not to argue with the applicants. What ever they want give it to them. No matter how unbelievable their story might be.

So she saw first hand men arriving in vans wearing paint splattered overalls coming in to sign on and collect their giros. She was not allowed to query it

It was pure institutional lazyness, anything for a quiet life and it came down from above. Don't make waves because nobody loves a hero, it just creates paperwork. 

This impression of the Civil Service I think is endemic at the grass roots.

Edited September 8 by Vince Green

[12gauge82]

29 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

My impression (and it is really only that) is that the (very small in the grand scheme of things) number of people to be sent to Rwanda could have happened.  The 'blockage was here (from 'officials, courts, judiciary') not Rwanda.

I have also heard from various interviews that the idea that it would 'deter' was sound. 

The key thing was to get the information round that IF you landed in the UK without the right paperwork, passport, permissions and via a proper transport means (flight, ferry etc.) then you would possibly be deported to Rwanda - from where there would be no legal possibility of ever getting UK acceptance.

The problem now seems to be partly that the prospective migrants have been brainwashed that by paying all this money (the source of which is a mystery to me with them coming from 'poor' countries) and being welcomed with cash handouts, easy jobs, free housing, free first class health care and all of the other 'land of milk and honey' stories that they believe.

Sorry, can't look up past references at present where I picked these up - but that is my general impression.

EDIT: Having read the thread more fully, I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion.

Thanks John. We're in agreement in that it was the only 'real' solution that has ever been put into motion and that it would have likely substantially helped. 

[Vince Green]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

The key thing was to get the information round that IF you landed in the UK without the right paperwork, passport, permissions and via a proper transport means (flight, ferry etc.) then you would possibly be deported to Rwanda - from where there would be no legal possibility of ever getting UK acceptance.

This is it in a nutshell.  If we get it why can't plonkers like Starmer get it?

The whole principal was the threat would be enough if you made it clear you were absolutely serious about doing it. There would be nobody coming that needed to actually be sent to Rwanda.

Its appalling how stupid Starmer was to say outright that he would cancel the scheme. Before he was even elected!

Edited September 8 by Vince Green

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, Any thoughts on the Keir Starmer interview that has just been on the BBC ??

[JKD]

5 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Any thoughts on the Keir Starmer interview that has just been on the BBC ??

Join in with this discussion,,,,,,

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

6 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Any thoughts on the Keir Starmer interview that has just been on the BBC ??

 

[old man]

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

That may well be so, but why is anyone still working from home?

Come on, seriously, who thinks the Rwanda thing was a serious threat. Apart from the likely orgasm over spending money from someone else's purse and a bit of 3rd rate rag publicity.

[Rewulf]

17 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I would say it's crucial. China needs to see the west will not tolerate Russia pushing Ukraine around

So they put some sanctions on them, sold them some weapons, and helped them blow up a pipeline ?

Showed them good and proper didn't it ?

17 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Nato should have held Ukrainian ground leaving a 10 mile buffer zone and made it very clear to Russia a war with them would mean a war with us

1000 miles of border with nato troops and heavy weapons massed up against Russia , would need 300000 troops minimum, what could possibly go wrong there ?

 

15 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Has anyone looked at the number of asylum claims France have per year compared to us?

More claims,  3x less acceptance, net immigration from asylum claims at nearly twice the number.

[12gauge82]

52 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So they put some sanctions on them, sold them some weapons, and helped them blow up a pipeline ?

Showed them good and proper didn't it ?

1000 miles of border with nato troops and heavy weapons massed up against Russia , would need 300000 troops minimum, what could possibly go wrong there ?

 

More claims,  3x less acceptance, net immigration from asylum claims at nearly twice the number.

You can play it down by saying "only" sanctions, weapons and a pipeline, but I'm pretty sure it was you claiming (rightly imo) that it was a proxy war not so long ago.

The bottom line is they've prevented a Russian victory, without intervention Ukraine would have been defeated long ago. So I'd say it's met it's objective of preventing a Russian victory so far. 

As for Nato holding the Russians back, a personal rule of mine when dealing with someone hostile is to never make a statement you can't back up, I agree deployment of Nato forces on a full war footing would have been a bold move and if done, the intention to use them must have been there if necessary. I still think we should push in to unoccupied territory and hold it, allowing Ukraine to use it's forces (and our weapons) to reclaim their territory, including Crimea, only my personal opinion though and I'm just some guy on the Internet. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

You can play it down by saying "only" sanctions, weapons and a pipeline, but I'm pretty sure it was you claiming (rightly imo) that it was a proxy war not so long ago.

It is a proxy war, if you use nato troops , it's not.

Sanctions did very little, the pipeline hurt Germany more than Russia,  weapons just made sure more people on both sides were killed and maimed.

Who benefits ?

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

The bottom line is they've prevented a Russian victory, without intervention Ukraine would have been defeated long ago. So I'd say it's met it's objective of preventing a Russian victory so far

So far, yes. You're right it would have been over long ago without nato intervention.

But where do we go from here, Ukraine aren't going to 'win' even if Russia lose.

The damage is incalculable. 

Who benefits ?

Zelensky would be more than happy for nato to declare war on Russia,  would you , I or Ukraine benefit from that?

[oowee]

Russia is on it's knees. They are pretty much out of kit. If they were not, they would not be using tanks from the 50's and buying rockets from N Korea. The sanctions have had a huge impact on the economy and we now have for the first time gang leaders in country calling out Putin.

He is unable to defend his own country. Kursk, Naval Fleet and fuel production are good examples. Appointing new heads of service in the morning and then getting rid in the afternoon. An iron grip is not the same as a secure grip. 

Ukraine is pretty much in the same place but fighting to exist. The promised kit has been slow to arrive. Innovation in Ukraine munitions is an eye opener for many western arms manufacturers. 

 

[clangerman]

17 minutes ago, oowee said:

Russia is on its knees. They are pretty much out of kit. If they were not, they would not be using tanks from the 50's and buying rockets from N Korea. The sanctions have had a huge impact on the economy and we now have for the first time gang leaders in country calling out Putin.

 

 

I try not to laugh at you like some mate but you’re making it really hard with this! lol 

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

Russia is on it's knees. They are pretty much out of kit. If they were not, they would not be using tanks from the 50's and buying rockets from N Korea. The sanctions have had a huge impact on the economy and we now have for the first time gang leaders in country calling out Putin.

Theyve been saying that for 18 months now, yet another barrage of missiles rain down and Ukraine loses territory every day, it's old and boring propaganda. 

Sadly , it's Ukraine on its knees, and time is not on their side.

21 minutes ago, oowee said:

Kursk,

A pointless incursion to surround themselves, it's already a failure, and the aim of drawing forces away from donbass hasn't worked.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Theyve been saying that for 18 months now, yet another barrage of missiles rain down and Ukraine loses territory every day, it's old and boring propaganda. 

Sadly , it's Ukraine on its knees, and time is not on their side.

A pointless incursion to surround themselves, it's already a failure, and the aim of drawing forces away from donbass hasn't worked.

If Russia could rain missiles on Ukraine they would. They can only do it after stock piling. If they had decent kit they would use it, but they don't have it. They do not have enough men to execute any significant gains if they had they would. Yes they have continued to take ground but now hold less ground than they had in 2022. 

If all was good with Russia why is it not over? 

The incursion to Kursk is far more than pulling troops out of the Donbass. Kursk is an historically important area for defence for Russia alongside Stalingrad. It shows Russian weakness and make a mockery of the red line reservations from the West. Ukraine now digging in. 

The direct arson and assassination attacks by Russia in the West are another example of the desperation of the Russians. 

[39TDS]

Germany taking over the Rwanda scheme

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyl5p2zd50o

 

Apologies if already mentioned.

Edited September 8 by 39TDS

[old man]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

So they put some sanctions on them, sold them some weapons, and helped them blow up a pipeline ?

Showed them good and proper didn't it ?

1000 miles of border with nato troops and heavy weapons massed up against Russia , would need 300000 troops minimum, what could possibly go wrong there ?

 

 

We haven't got that many.😃

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It is a proxy war, if you use nato troops , it's not.

Sanctions did very little, the pipeline hurt Germany more than Russia,  weapons just made sure more people on both sides were killed and maimed.

Who benefits ?

So far, yes. You're right it would have been over long ago without nato intervention.

But where do we go from here, Ukraine aren't going to 'win' even if Russia lose.

The damage is incalculable. 

Who benefits ?

Zelensky would be more than happy for nato to declare war on Russia,  would you , I or Ukraine benefit from that?

Your shifting your point. You claimed sanctions ect, so what. I pointed out it's prevented Russia achieving its objectives, that's huge, although not as radical as my suggestions. 

As for who benifits, probably no one, if we're talking directly about Ukraine and Russia, but that's often the case with war. On a global scale it sends a strong message, (providing the West don't give up and Russia doesn't ultimately win). 

You seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ukraine should hand the land over to Russia. Too that, I ask you if you would suggest the same if half of the UK had been invaded?