Keir Starmer

[Paddy Roxburgh]

To be honest I can't say I know too much about Irish politics so I'll take your word for that.
Purely out of interest and for my own knowledge, can you give examples of the British judiciary being duplicitous or disingenuous which warrants mistrust of the British Judiciary system by the Irish people and has the ECHR been used to overrule British law to protect Irish citizens?

If you can cite any instances I'd appreciate it. You don't need to go into detail as I can look them up when I have time.

Look up “internment”, “Guildford 4” and “Birmingham 6”
Now you could argue that these were failings of the government and the police rather than the courts, but it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the GFA necessitates the confidence of northern Irish republicans (and loyalists), and republicans do not have any faith in the entire British justice system, from police and MI5, to courts and government. You can tell me they’re wrong and should trust British justice, I could even agree with you (unlikely), but I’m in no way connected to the Irish peace process or any ex paramilitaries, despite having some relatives there I’ve never even been to the north, and I was born and raised in London. The people who need convincing are ex IRA and Sinn Fein, and you’re not going to convince them to trust the British courts, ever. This is why American and EU involvement in the peace process and the GFA were, and continue to be, absolutely critical

 

[Blackswanwood]

My old boss - and good friend - ended up as Governor of St. Helena. He said there's nothing wrong with it: a consistently mild - but wet and windy - Atlantic climate. But it's VERY small, and very mountainous. The popultion is just 5,000 people, and occupies most of the one available valley. There was - only with some exteme civil engineering - JUST room to build a small airstrip. So where are the tens or hundreds of thousands of failed 'asylumm-seekers' going to go?

Your post piqued my interest and it appears the number of asylum seekers covered by the plan to relocate to St Helena is iro 200. I’m not saying it’s inconsequential given the population size (and happy to be corrected if I’ve got it wrong) but it seems to be far lower than the number you suggest.

 

[spanner48]

Your post piqued my interest and it appears the number of asylum seekers covered by the plan to relocate to St Helena is iro 200. I’m not saying it’s inconsequential given the population size (and happy to be corrected if I’ve got it wrong) but it seems to be far lower than the number you suggest.

200? So: 4% of the existing population. Apply that to the UK, and you get 2.6 million 'asylum-seekers' being housed. And 200 fewer of them will not make the tiniest scratch on the UK's numbers for deportation . . . .

And since the updating of the St. Helena government Immigration Regulations in 2022 [https://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/public-services/immigration/], there does not appear to have been any consultation between the UK and St. Helenian governments. St. Helena's immigration rules are "closely modelled" on UK ones. So those denied immigration status in the UK will almost certainly equally be denied it in St. Helena.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Just because we signed up to the GFA and ECHR does not mean we can't re-examine whether staying in it is a good or bad thing.
Societal changes, way of life and other things change with time. So something set up many years ago and still rooted in archaic logic may are may not make sense today.

I am neither for nor against it at the moment, but I do think it's membership needs to be reviewed under today's way of life and a determination as to it's benefits or restrictions still hold true for today's populous.

Withdrawing from the GFA would be absolutely disastrous. Do you really want British troops back in the north of Ireland, loyalist death squads killing lawyers and journalists, Republican paramilitaries blowing up targets in England? Innocent civilians in Ireland and England killed? I really can think of anyone in the UK or Ireland who would benefit from withdrawing from the GFA, it would be a massive act of self harm

 

[Blackswanwood]

200? So: 4% of the existing population. Apply that to the UK, and you get 2.6 million 'asylum-seekers' being housed. And 200 fewer of them will not make the tiniest scratch on the UK's numbers for deportation . . . .

And since the updating of the St. Helena government Immigration Regulations in 2022 [https://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/public-services/immigration/], there does not appear to have been any consultation between the UK and St. Helenian governments. St. Helena's immigration rules are "closely modelled" on UK ones. So those denied immigration status in the UK will almost certainly equally be denied it in St. Helena.

I’m not arguing it’s a good idea but it seems to have the full agreement and support of the St Helena Government …

https://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/2024...ture-british-indian-ocean-territory-migrants/

 

[Sachakins]

Withdrawing from the GFA would be absolutely disastrous. Do you really want British troops back in the north of Ireland, loyalist death squads killing lawyers and journalists, Republican paramilitaries blowing up targets in England? Innocent civilians in Ireland and England killed? I really can think of anyone in the UK or Ireland who would benefit from withdrawing from the GFA, it would be a massive act of self harm

Does that presupose that since it's been a few decades, then it can't be revisited and further agreements made.

That's like saying we had a death penalty in the past, therefore we should keep it today. Don't think that would be acceptable today, since public view has changed.
So why do you think the GFA is set in stone, life, society and times change so why not revisit the GFA and separate it from ECHR and make new and progressive negotiations to take account if today's society.

After all, we fought a world war with Germany, but today relationships have changed and we can work together, so we have the capacity to change if we give it a chance.

Status quo never progresses any nation or people, without constant dialogue things never change...

 

[Noel]

Does that presupose that since it's been a few decades, then it can't be revisited and further agreements made.

That's like saying we had a death penalty in the past, therefore we should keep it today. Don't think that would be acceptable today, since public view has changed.
So why do you think the GFA is set in stone, life, society and times change so why not revisit the GFA and separate it from ECHR and make new and progressive negotiations to take account if today's society.

After all, we fought a world war with Germany, but today relationships have changed and we can work together, so we have the capacity to change if we give it a chance.

Status quo never progresses any nation or people, without constant dialogue things never change...

Have you read the agreement Sachakins?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Your post piqued my interest and it appears the number of asylum seekers covered by the plan to relocate to St Helena is iro 200. I’m not saying it’s inconsequential given the population size (and happy to be corrected if I’ve got it wrong) but it seems to be far lower than the number you suggest.

You are absolutely correct.

This is a very complex predicament and it does nobody any favours when they make carp up or repeat obvious carp or use it as political grandstanding or basically just tell lies about the back story or the intentions.

It has been characterised as a "Rwanda style" deal, which is pretty far from reality.
The false labelling is why people pick up the silly idea that "tens of thousands" or even sillier "hundreds of thousands" are what is being talked about.
But I'm guessing this is the intent of Talk TV and GBNews et al, to deliberately spread misinformation and whip up negative feelings. It's disgusting. Even as much as it is predictable.

The underlying issue is that British Colonialism has come back to bite. Hard. The annexation of Chagos was entirely unlawful and has been criticised under International Law for many years.

The big trouble is that there were a large proportion of "freed slaves" that were placed there, forcibly, by the Brits. (Because out of sight, out of mind...) They have disputed legal claim to citizenship in Chagos, and will probably be displaced after transfer of authority to Mauritius. They don't even call the place "home". But it is all they have.

The fundamental reason why this isn't really a "Rwanda style deal"... At the moment, under international law, any asylum seekers who arrive in Chagos and have their claims UPHELD then have a legal right to settle in UK. Because Chagos still falls under UK rule, however unlawful the annexation remains...
So, up until the full transfer, under transitional arrangements, it has been agreed that instead of accepting successful asylum seekers (Refugees) into UK, they will instead be transfered to another UK Territory.
I'm unsettled by that. However it is what has been agreed. But you'd really think that the very people who subscribe to "Stop The Boats" (Bleurgh) would be happy about that arrangement.

As I understand it, asylum seekers won't be transferred to St Helena "for processing", and failed claimants into Chagos will still be returned to origin, as is routine.

And as you say, the numbers of asylum seekers arriving into Chagos are expected to number into the tens or maybe hundreds. Not the thousands and definitely not the tens or hundreds of thousands. I've lost count of the number of times I've typed the word absurd on this thread. But the very thought that anybody would claim tens/hundreds of thousands being transferred from Chagos to St Helena is absurd.

 

[Sachakins]

In depth, no, in synopsis yes.
Two observations.

.....both sides agreed this should not happen on the Irish border, to protect the Good Friday Agreement, because it was feared the cross-border co-operation could be threatened if new checkpoints were set up.

I believe this was a mistake, and it directly dragged the GFA into a brexit agreement. And used the checkpoints for goods in transit as an excuse that they could be used to resurrect police checkpoints. Why, we have border checkpoints for other goods that work without the perceived cloak and dagger tactics from the judiciary, this was, in my opinion a ruse to tie GFA to Brexit unnecessarily.

Secondly;
....although the agreement does not specifically refer to the border, it does mention removing all security installations

Why was this deemed necessary, even though not specified, it was seized as an opportunity to keep open routes of unfettered access, should a return to armed sectarian conflicts again.
To me this represented no more than a statement of yes, we can stand down arms and terrorism, but we want to preserve a way that we can easily return to old ways with impunity for border crossings!

The GFA was signed in 1998 on basis of compromises and shared safe governance, neither of which has truly panned out, yes a reduction on blatant terrorism, but even today there still exists a level of threat, but not at a level that the mainstream media deems worthy of reporting, or has been directed to not highlight or widely report in UK.

 

[Sachakins]

You are absolutely correct.

This is a very complex predicament and it does nobody any favours when they make carp up or repeat obvious carp or use it as political grandstanding or basically just tell lies about the back story or the intentions.

It has been characterised as a "Rwanda style" deal, which is pretty far from reality.
The false labelling is why people pick up the silly idea that "tens of thousands" or even sillier "hundreds of thousands" are what is being talked about.
But I'm guessing this is the intent of Talk TV and GBNews et al, to deliberately spread misinformation and whip up negative feelings. It's disgusting. Even as much as it is predictable.

The underlying issue is that British Colonialism has come back to bite. Hard. The annexation of Chagos was entirely unlawful and has been criticised under International Law for many years.

The big trouble is that there were a large proportion of "freed slaves" that were placed there, forcibly, by the Brits. (Because out of sight, out of mind...) They have disputed legal claim to citizenship in Chagos, and will probably be displaced after transfer of authority to Mauritius. They don't even call the place "home". But it is all they have.

The fundamental reason why this isn't really a "Rwanda style deal"... At the moment, under international law, any asylum seekers who arrive in Chagos and have their claims UPHELD then have a legal right to settle in UK. Because Chagos still falls under UK rule, however unlawful the annexation remains...
So, up until the full transfer, under transitional arrangements, it has been agreed that instead of accepting successful asylum seekers (Refugees) into UK, they will instead be transfered to another UK Territory.
I'm unsettled by that. However it is what has been agreed. But you'd really think that the very people who subscribe to "Stop The Boats" (Bleurgh) would be happy about that arrangement.

As I understand it, asylum seekers won't be transferred to St Helena "for processing", and failed claimants into Chagos will still be returned to origin, as is routine.

And as you say, the numbers of asylum seekers arriving into Chagos are expected to number into the tens or maybe hundreds. Not the thousands and definitely not the tens or hundreds of thousands. I've lost count of the number of times I've typed the word absurd on this thread. But the very thought that anybody would claim tens/hundreds of thousands being transferred from Chagos to St Helena is absurd.

At this moment I don't believe the media estimated of 10's of thousands. Neither do I believe it's only about 200. Reality is at this point we don't know, but I think both estimates are likely to be massively overstated by the media AND greatly understated by politicians too.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

At this moment I don't believe the media estimated of 10's of thousands. Neither do I believe it's only about 200. Reality is at this point we don't know, but I think both estimates are likely to be massively overstated by the media AND greatly understated by politicians too.

The 200 figure uses past numbers, records and experience as a guide to form an educated and historically substantiated estimate.
The ten thousand/hundred thousand figure is a deliberate lie.

If I understand your point correctly, you're implying that thousands would be the numbers you might expect, since that falls in between "hundreds" and "tens of thousands".

It would be interesting to return to this post in 18 months to discover whether you're implied expectation is anywhere near the truth, woukd it not?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It's difficult to observe the 'lasting impact' of Brexit on the heels of the pandemic and the subsequent downturn of the global economy.

How Brexit should be judged is open to question as no clear criteria were ever set against which success or failure would be judged. The waters are further muddied by the pandemic.

However in over 4 years since formal exit there is little evidence of success (and plenty of failure):

• UK GDP and growth performing worse than most other major EU economies
• a few trivial new trade deals despite the promises- most signed are simply a roll over of existing EU deals
• trade stalled initially due to inadequacies in paperwork and processes - some now being resolved
• no obvious material increase in inward investment in a UK free of EU regulation
• no obvious improvement is productivity - possibly going in reverse with new regulations planned by Starmer
• no progress on illegal immigration
• cost savings of EU membership are indetectable against all the other economic noise
• Northern Ireland issue still compromised

The people were sold, and sadly voted for, a pup. That it was ever going to be proven a success in 4 years was unlikely - the scale of the change would need a decade to prove itself conclusively.

Defence of Brexit - IMHO - is on very shaky ground. However - it happened and we need to make the best of it - look forwards not backwards - it will not be reversed quickly.

 

[Sachakins]

If I understand your point correctly, you're implying that thousands would be the numbers you might expect, since that falls in between "hundreds" and "tens of thousands".

It would be interesting to return to this post in 18 months to discover whether you're implied expectation is anywhere near the truth, woukd it not?

Far from it, what I was saying is that both are estimates of unknowns, I've no idea or any expectation of which way it will it go. I don't yet have enough evidence to make or decide a on figure to estimate and I certainly would not make a guess, neither do I agree with your assertion that
"...If I understand your point correctly, you're implying that thousands would be the numbers you might expect"

I never implied, nor atest to your presumption of thousands.

 

[AJB Temple]

Nothing will ever be proven. Like all of these choices, we can't be sure what the outcome would have been had the UK population voted for the other option. Such major decisions should not in future be decided on such a marginal vote with so little verified information.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Far from it, what I was saying is that both are estimates of unknowns, I've no idea or any expectation of which way it will it go. I don't yet have enough evidence to make or decide a on figure to estimate and I certainly would not make a guess, neither do I agree with your assertion that
"...If I understand your point correctly, you're implying that thousands would be the numbers you might expect"

I never implied, nor atest to your presumption of thousands.

Fair enough.
But it is what seemed to be implied in your "I don't trust either", which I took to be one too low, one too high, truth might be somewhere in the middle connotations of your post...

What if I told you that the expected figure, estimated using "historic norms" and "realistic predictions" would be maybe a couple of hundred over the next 18 months?

What if I told you that the claims of tens /hundreds thousands were blatant lies with no foundation in historic norms or reality?

Would that tend to sway you in any one direction, or is it still open to interpretation in your opinion, due to your personal mistrust of something in particular?

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Does that presupose that since it's been a few decades, then it can't be revisited and further agreements made.

That's like saying we had a death penalty in the past, therefore we should keep it today. Don't think that would be acceptable today, since public view has changed.
So why do you think the GFA is set in stone, life, society and times change so why not revisit the GFA and separate it from ECHR and make new and progressive negotiations to take account if today's society.

After all, we fought a world war with Germany, but today relationships have changed and we can work together, so we have the capacity to change if we give it a chance.

Status quo never progresses any nation or people, without constant dialogue things never change...

Your notion that the GFA was a couple of decades ago, and that that means it’s old news displays a fundamental misunderstanding of its significance. The issues the GFA addresses are measured in centuries not decades. I totally get it that not many folk over here learn about this stuff, but in order to understand it’s significance you need to read about Irish/English history from the plantations in the 16 century, through Cromwell’s campaigns in the 17 century, the conflict between William and James at the turn of the 18th century, the famine of the 1840s, the war of independence and partition in the early 20th century through to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the troubles of the 70s till the late 90s.
The GFA was initially signed in 1998, but did not become an actual reality until Paisley signed up to the peace process and sat down with Martin McGuinness in 2007, it was a truly historic moment and represented a fragile peace in a conflict that had gone on since at least the 16 century. The situation is still incredibly fragile and it would be an act of incredible stupidity to abandon what has been achieved. I’d strongly advise you to learn about the events I have outlined if you truly wish to understand its significance.
I’m not going to post any more about this, I’m not sure how I’ve got sucked into it, I come to this website to read/post about woodwork, not politics and history, but you can easily educate yourself with a few clicks on your phone if you wish.

 

[Sachakins]

Your notion that the GFA was a couple of decades ago, and that that means it’s old news displays a fundamental misunderstanding of its significance. The issues the GFA addresses are measured in centuries not decades. I totally get it that not many folk over here learn about this stuff, but in order to understand it’s significance you need to read about Irish/English history from the plantations in the 16 century, through Cromwell’s campaigns in the 17 century, the conflict between William and James at the turn of the 18th century, the famine of the 1840s, the war of independence and partition in the early 20th century through to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the troubles of the 70s till the late 90s.
The GFA was initially signed in 1998, but did not become an actual reality until Paisley signed up to the peace process and sat down with Martin McGuinness in 2007, it was a truly historic moment and represented a fragile peace in a conflict that had gone on since at least the 16 century. The situation is still incredibly fragile and it would be an act of incredible stupidity to abandon what has been achieved. I’d strongly advise you to learn about the events I have outlined if you truly wish to understand its significance.
I’m not going to post any more about this, I’m not sure how I’ve got sucked into it, I come to this website to read/post about woodwork, not politics and history, but you can easily educate yourself with a few clicks on your phone if you wish.

I agree to differ, based on when it was signed was the GFA inception.

Yes there us all sorts of historical implications, but the GFA only came into force in 1998, not before, even if the reasons prior go back centuries, does imply the GFA is that old.

 

[Sachakins]

Fair enough.
But it is what seemed to be implied in your "I don't trust either", which I took to be one too low, one too high, truth might be somewhere in the middle connotations of your post...

What if I told you that the expected figure, estimated using "historic norms" and "realistic predictions" would be maybe a couple of hundred over the next 18 months?

What if I told you that the claims of tens /hundreds thousands were blatant lies with no foundation in historic norms or reality?

Would that tend to sway you in any one direction, or is it still open to interpretation in your opinion, due to your personal mistrust of something in particular?

I wouldn't be swayed either way at present.
Historically it was 200, but given the talk and agreements, that knowledge will have impacts on future numbers. The shear knowledge of the decision will have an impact on decisions as to the why people arrive illegally, it may deter people, it may have no impact or it could encourage more to get there ASAP.
Only on observation of change now, can we start to determine within a statistical confidence interval as to which way it's going to go.
Anything else is pure finger in the air guesswork, and yes, one thing I do agree on, is that mass media love guessing without evidence, but state it in such a way as to imply they know something we don't, which generally results in total bulls carp...

 

[Fergie 307]

In depth, no, in synopsis yes.
Two observations.

.....both sides agreed this should not happen on the Irish border, to protect the Good Friday Agreement, because it was feared the cross-border co-operation could be threatened if new checkpoints were set up.

I believe this was a mistake, and it directly dragged the GFA into a brexit agreement. And used the checkpoints for goods in transit as an excuse that they could be used to resurrect police checkpoints. Why, we have border checkpoints for other goods that work without the perceived cloak and dagger tactics from the judiciary, this was, in my opinion a ruse to tie GFA to Brexit unnecessarily.

Secondly;
....although the agreement does not specifically refer to the border, it does mention removing all security installations

Why was this deemed necessary, even though not specified, it was seized as an opportunity to keep open routes of unfettered access, should a return to armed sectarian conflicts again.
To me this represented no more than a statement of yes, we can stand down arms and terrorism, but we want to preserve a way that we can easily return to old ways with impunity for border crossings!

The GFA was signed in 1998 on basis of compromises and shared safe governance, neither of which has truly panned out, yes a reduction on blatant terrorism, but even today there still exists a level of threat, but not at a level that the mainstream media deems worthy of reporting, or has been directed to not highlight or widely report in UK.

You could argue that the overarching aim was to try and put and end to hundreds of years of violence, and try and bring a more normal existence to the population.
In that context the removal of the visible security measures and border posts was a very significant, if perhaps symbolic gesture. A show of faith in the process of you like.
Let's face it there was never really that much of a problem for those who wanted to get stuff across when it was all in place.
And yes there will always be the die hards who want to carry on the fight, but if your reaction to anything they do is to want to ditch the GFA and go back to how things were, then you are reacting in exactly the way they would hope.

 

[Sachakins]

Nothing will ever be proven. Like all of these choices, we can't be sure what the outcome would have been had the UK population voted for the other option. Such major decisions should not in future be decided on such a marginal vote with so little verified information.

Yes and no.
The vote no matter how close,even a majority of 1 is a majority. Even if the turn out was low, it is still a majority.

The issue of non verified information is a good point. And I agree that party political points scoring, using unverifiable or non statistically significant projections during that referendum was disgraceful.