Keir Starmer

[Jacob]

I decided after studying The Treaty of Rome for O level in 1970 that I didn't wish to join the EEC

Did you pass?

(let alone the EU - we should have had the referendum at Maastricht), as it was designed to be a political union.

However "it was designed" it would have been in our power to change and develop it. It was political agreement in the first place, by definition.

I assume T. o. R was "misinformation"? Most people who voted for leaving the EU had decided long before the referendum.

Seems very unlikely. The benefits were obvious, even more so now that we have thrown them away.

 

[RobinBHM]

First to recognise that they are highly motivated and not risk averse

Ive found immigrants extremely motivated, lots of them start businesses and are very successful

this idea they are attracted to come here to be lazy and enjoy living off £7 a day, is just a Daily Mail trope

People dont leave their country, their society, their family, their friends for £7 a day, they do it because life is intolerable.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I've found immigrants extremely motivated, lots of them start businesses and are very successful ...


Certainly. The legal ones.

 

[flying haggis]

Ive found immigrants extremely motivated, lots of them start businesses and are very successful

this idea they are attracted to come here to be lazy and enjoy living off £7 a day, is just a Daily Mail trope

People dont leave their country, their society, their family, their friends for £7 a day, they do it because life is intolerable.

But they want to be given leave to stay here so that the £7 a day becomes free everything....

 

[Spectric]

what would you like the RNLI or Border Force to be doing

Well the RNLI should do nothing because it is not there job, our navy should be the ones protecting our borders and treating these migrants as criminals until proven otherwise which is how many countries work because you really do not know their background or the potential threat they pose to the people of the Uk since they have no paperwork. Allowing potential terrorist to get into the UK by hiding amongst the mass is going to end very badly especially considering the current conflicts and the fact that our inteligence services have already stated that some states like Iran are recruiting within the UK.

 

[Jacob]

But they want to be given leave to stay here so that the £7 a day becomes free everything....

More Daily Mail malignant nonsense. You can read elsewhere about the miserable conditions of asylum seekers if you could be bothered.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I agree that the current situation relating to immigration is a mess. It feels a bit early to be getting indignant with the current government about it though. I wonder if some people just want to be indignant as Starmer irritates them?

Debate on the topic is difficult as (particularly online) it is complex and quickly descends to claim and counterclaim based on the last snippet of information someone has seen. The Albanian criminal earlier that brought on a irate person rash for some is unlikely to be a typical asylum seeker. Undoubtedly there are some economic migrants but the majority seem to be more motivated by persecution and/or living conditions in war torn areas of the world. The French could do more to stop the boats launching – but it shouldn’t be down to them to shoulder our share of a burden of what is a “world problem”.

At a time when it feels like the UK is stretched, I can understand the questions about how can we cope with an influx of people. I will never understand though how anyone can contemplate that letting people drown is acceptable. I also feel the “if it were me I’d stay and fight” type of comments are ramblings of a cossetted keyboard warrior who has not really thought it through.

If I’d been born in a country that was war torn, had seen my friends and family killed and saw no prospect of things improving I’d do what it took to go somewhere else in the world. If it meant scraping together the money to pay a people smuggler to get to one of the richest countries in the world (where there's probably already a community from my country) and dumping my passport in the English Channel I’d do it. Some may call it playing the game but to me it would be improving the life of me and my family. I don't believe anyone who says they'd do otherwise.

The long-term answer (in my opinion) is through effective aid programmes to improve the lot of these people where they live. Perhaps part of the short-term answer is to recognise and embrace that many who arrive here have shown an aptitude and determination to make something of their lives. That's something even Daily Mail readers should admire?

 

[sploo]

Certainly. The legal ones.

I think that's the critical issue; the previous government closed off the routes for legal immigration into the UK*, and slashed the resources of the immigration service. As a result, pretty much any route in now involves people smugglers, and a long backlog of processing. This leads to the "small boats" problem; which is a perfect dead cat strategy to get people distracted from wider issues.

If legal immigration routes were made available again, and the immigration service properly resourced, then you'd see a significant drop in "small boats".

That would then likely leave the customer base of the people smugglers to only those who know they wouldn't get granted legal asylum into the UK. I'm probably grossly oversimplifying there, but the point is that the previous government largely created an issue they use to rally attention.

* I'm pretty certain it was Priti Patel (then home secretary) that was asked for an example of how someone from a war-torn African nation would legally apply for immigration into the UK; and she couldn't answer.

 

[RobinBHM]

But they want to be given leave to stay here so that the £7 a day becomes free everything....

thank you for your reply

if their application is approved they get 5 years leave to remain and are able to get a job

Do you have evidence that asylum seekers that get approved are lazy and want to "sponge off the state"?

It would be helpful if you could outline why you have come to this conclusion

It is true that those asylum seekers are more likely to be unemployed.........but there are reasons, not least because they arent given sufficient support

here is a bit of background detail:

Barriers to employment for refugees​

Refugees living in the UK face a variety of barriers to employment, including:

• employment gaps on CVs due to the lengthy asylum process
• lack of UK work experience
• limited understanding of the UK job market and no professional networks
• non-recognition of qualifications
• language barriers
• cultural differences
• public misconceptions and discrimination.

84% of refugees reported that they did not have sufficient English language ability to get a job. Support with these issues is very limited – in some places waiting lists for English classes are two years long, and the majority of those in classes say that the classes they are doing are not sufficient to learn the language.

As a result, refugees in the UK are 4 times more likely to be unemployed than people born here, and on average earn about half the amount per week that UK nationals do. This is despite high levels of qualifications and skills. For example, 45% of clients that we worked with were educated to degree level or above, and 77% had at least three years work experience.

A report from the Commission on the Integration of Refugees found that if applications for asylum were processed within six months and people were therefore able to work, refugees also received tailored employment support after six months, and refugees and asylum seekers received free English classes from arrival, there would be an overall net economic benefit of £1.2billion for the UK economy within 5 years.

https://breaking-barriers.co.uk/our-impact/refugee-asylum-facts/

 

[Jacob]

Well the RNLI should do nothing because it is not there job, our navy should be the ones protecting our borders and treating these migrants as criminals until proven otherwise

Basically premise of civilised societies everywhere is that no one is a criminal until proven

which is how many countries work because you really do not know their background or the potential threat they pose to the people of the Uk since they have no paperwork. Allowing potential terrorist to get into the UK by hiding amongst the mass is going to end very badly especially considering the current conflicts and the fact that our inteligence services have already stated that some states like Iran are recruiting within the UK.

Paranoid nonsense. They are all normal human beings as a rule.
Hiding on a dinghy in the middle of the channel doesn't really look like a smart move! What, disguise yourself as an illegal immigrant so as not to attract attention to yourself in a little boat!
Surely a serious terrorist would be able to fake legitimate access.
They aren't a particular hazard in the first place. There is much more terrorism coming from our own right wing nutters. Immigrants are generally trying to get away from trouble spots, not planning to bring it with them.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Is it fair to say that a large part of that money goes straight back into the UK economy? Accommodation, food, salaries of those processing applications and so on?

A very fair comment.

Spending the money on doctors, nurses, teachers etc would have very similar economic benefits.

This would provide services the whole community could appreciate - unlike the provision of accommodation etc for asylum seekers which is perceived as a burden not a benefit.

 

[Spectric]

I wonder if some people just want to be indignant as Starmer irritates them

But it is probably more to do with just more broken promises, the Labour party were the first to have a go at the tories over imigration and did say that they would be the ones to do something such as to reduce dependency on foreign workers and employ some new Border Command with more new investigators and cross border police officers to look at disrupting the people smuggling gangs but this has only resulted in new record numbers crossing the channel and the cost incurred keeps rising.

 

[RobinBHM]

Well the RNLI should do nothing because it is not there job, our navy should be the ones protecting our borders and treating these migrants as criminals

Please could you state what you mean by "protecting our borders"

do you think the Navy should be pushing back boats so they sink and the people drown?

what does "protecting our borders" look like in practice?

would you be happy if the UK government was sanctioning the drowning of people?

 

[sploo]

But it is probably more to do with just more broken promises, the Labour party were the first to have a go at the tories over imigration and did say that they would be the ones to do something such as to reduce dependency on foreign workers and employ some new Border Command with more new investigators and cross border police officers to look at disrupting the people smuggling gangs but this has only resulted in new record numbers crossing the channel and the cost incurred keeps rising.

It's been less than 3 months since Labour took power. Changing things at that level is not a quick job. Judge them after a year (at which point, they may well have failed - like so many politicians before - but at least give them time to fail).

 

[RobinBHM]

but this has only resulted in new record numbers crossing the channel

not true

the numbers are way down compared to 2022 when Conservatives were in power

the numbers coming here by small boat are mostly related to weather conditions..........boat crossings are highest in the summer months

August is usually the month with the highest numbers

But it is probably more to do with just more broken promises

Labour havent made any broken promises

surely you realise this:

"something such as to reduce dependency on foreign workers and employ some new Border Command with more new investigators and cross border police officers to look at disrupting the people smuggling gangs"

takes time to set up

 

[Blackswanwood]

But it is probably more to do with just more broken promises, the Labour party were the first to have a go at the tories over imigration and did say that they would be the ones to do something such as to reduce dependency on foreign workers and employ some new Border Command with more new investigators and cross border police officers to look at disrupting the people smuggling gangs but this has only resulted in new record numbers crossing the channel and the cost incurred keeps rising.

I am pretty sure he did not say it would be an immediate improvement.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I think that's the critical issue; the previous government closed off the routes for legal immigration into the UK*, and slashed the resources of the immigration service. As a result, pretty much any route in now involves people smugglers, and a long backlog of processing. This leads to the "small boats" problem; which is a perfect dead cat strategy to get people distracted from wider issues.

If legal immigration routes were made available again, and the immigration service properly resourced, then you'd see a significant drop in "small boats".

That would then likely leave the customer base of the people smugglers to only those who know they wouldn't get granted legal asylum into the UK. I'm probably grossly oversimplifying there, but the point is that the previous government largely created an issue they use to rally attention.

* I'm pretty certain it was Priti Patel (then home secretary) that was asked for an example of how someone from a war-torn African nation would legally apply for immigration into the UK; and she couldn't answer.

Legal immigration last year exceeded illegal by a factor of 10 - net legal ~700k, illegal ~70k.

The UK is an attractive place to live, despite frequent criticism from some quarters. It is relatively wealthy, democratic, law and order prevails, tolerant etc etc. That migrants take huge risks to get here is unsurprising.

Making asylum application easier may reduce the number arriving on small boats only through enhancing legal routes. It is likely to increase total immigration.

There is a gulf between the two opposing views on immigration - those who see it as a humanitarian duty and benefit vs those who regard it as a disruptive and costly burden at the expense of UK citizens. Both views have some justification.

To put illegal immigration into some sort of context - 70k pa compares with a total UK population of ~70m - 1 in 1000.

For a moderate size town with a population of 100k there would be 100 new arrivals each year. Of these ~75% are aged 18-39 and (one assumes) capable of significant economic contribution.

There is a very strong case to speed up the asylum process and apply the following outcomes:

• allow those whose claims are granted to take up paid employment swiftly - thus contributing to the society which has granted them the right to stay
• swiftly deporting those who fail in their claim to discourage any whose claim is less than plausible.

 

[Spectric]

Please could you state what you mean by "protecting our borders"

The borders are the interface between what is the UK and elsewhere, remove the borders then there is no distinction between the UK and elsewhere so it becomes a free for all with people movement without control. You need to protect the borders in order to control what passes through, just like many other countries so you want skilled people where you have shortages and that can become an asset but block all dead weights as they will just eventually sink the boat. The problem is that you need a detterent, there is no reason why the navy cannot just collect migrants and drop them back off in France as an asylum seeker should seek refuge in the first safe country they come across and not travel across continents.

what does "protecting our borders" look like in practice?

Try watching the program about the American border force and you will get an idea of what it should entail.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It's been less than 3 months since Labour took power. Changing things at that level is not a quick job. Judge them after a year (at which point, they may well have failed - like so many politicians before - but at least give them time to fail).

Labour have the political reins for the next 4+ years. We need to get used to it - like it or not!

Many changes will take some while to implement requiring legislation, training, plans, recruitment etc etc. To expect evident progress on anything of substance in three months is implausible and unfair.

Personally I am unconvinced - their performance thus far is poor. Rather than "new broom sweeping clean" they have started to exhibit the behaviours of their predecessors - poor judgement, expenses and gifts, discord at No. 10 etc. The difference - 14 years vs 3 months in government.

 

[Yorkieguy]

Turn up in somewhere like the states or Australia uninvited and you are not welcomed, they have border control and enforce it. Here we have the RNLI acting as a ferry and seem to welcome them with open arms without asking questions or seeing their documents because they have been thrown overboard.

The RNLI, Border Force, or any boat or ship which sees people in distress at sea has a legal duty to assist. If some countries such as Australia disregard international maritime law, that's not a valid reason for us to do likewise.

It's an irony which is lost on many, that almost all Australians are 'boat people'. The first Fleet of British settlers who went there were 'illegal immigrants', who, on arrival, because the only genuine Australians - the indigenous Aboriginal people, were hunter-gatherers and were sparsely dispersed, declared Australia to be 'Terra Nullius' - land that is legally deemed to be unoccupied or uninhabited. Once the First fleet arrived, they subsequently invited other British 'boat people' to turn up. Attitudes which prevailed then, are now part of Australia's DNA.

In Australia the question of whether British colonisers had regarded the continent as terra nullius at the time of the original settlement, and, if so, whether this was a proper designation, has been at the centre of several important legal cases in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They took diseases and alcohol there, and cruelly treated (still do), Aboriginal people. If you want to know how racist Australia was/is, it's worth reading about the 'Stolen Generation'.

The Stolen Generations (also known as Stolen Children) were the children of Aboriginal and Torries State Islanders descent who were forcibly removed from their families by the Australian federal and state government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. The removals of those referred to as 'half-caste' children were conducted in the period between approximately 1905 and 1967, although in some places mixed race children were still being taken into the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Back to international maritime law:

International maritime law requires ships to assist people in distress at sea, regardless of the circumstances:

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Article 98 of the UNCLOS requires states to require ship masters to help anyone in danger at sea, unless it would seriously endanger the rescuing ship.
  
  
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS): This 1974 convention regulates maritime rescue.
  
  
• International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR): This 1979 convention regulates maritime rescue.
  
  
• Duty to rescue applies equally to all: The duty to rescue applies regardless of the circumstances, including to people who contributed to their own distress.
  
  
• Duty to proceed with all speed: If a ship is able to provide assistance, it must proceed to help as quickly as possible.
  
  
• Duty to inform: The ship should inform the search and rescue service or the people in distress that it is helping.

The duty to rescue at sea is rooted in maritime tradition and is considered customary international law.

That's exactly as it should be and is exactly what happens around our shores, though undoubtedly there are those who think it should be otherwise.