The boat people

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

”taking back control" was sold as allowing our Parliament to make our laws - they are not being allowed to take the time to scrutinise what is proposed.

Quick unsuitably scrutinised Laws are usually bad laws.

"Just Get It Done" usually means "I don’t care what the problems are, just do it", and unfortunately later down the road someone else has to sort it out.

I've scrutinised the Bill and it looks perfectly reasonable to me, covering all the necessary bases.

Is there anything in the Bill to which you object?


---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

I was listening to French radio yesterday. Whilst we have "the boat people" they have the "border hoppers" coming in from Italy. And many people are really upset at this flow of "economic migrants who flout our laws".

We have a Bill before Parliament that the French could copy.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]I've scrutinised the Bill and it looks perfectly reasonable to me, covering all the necessary bases.

Ah well that’s fine then. Why don’t we scrap the committee system and just have the Commons run everything by you. What could possibly go wrong …

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ah well that’s fine then. Why don’t we scrap the committee system and just have the Commons run everything by you. What could possibly go wrong …

Don't be silly. We can all scrutinise the Bill and comment or indeed tell our MPs what we think.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't be silly. We can all scrutinise the Bill and comment or indeed tell our MPs what we think.

We can, and it would still be less useful in terms of well-drafted law than public hearings and written reports by experts who can be questioned by MPs who are not taking the government shilling.

I’m not sure why you’re so down on the committee system - even Margaret Thatcher grudgingly accepted its value (even though she sacked the minister who implemented them after her victory in 1979).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

We can, and it would still be less useful in terms of well-drafted law than public hearings and written reports by experts who can be questioned by MPs who are not taking the government shilling.

I’m not sure why you’re so down on the committee system - even Margaret Thatcher grudgingly accepted its value (even though she sacked the minister who implemented them after her victory in 1979).

I'm not "down on the Committee system" at all. I was asking Hugh what was wrong with the Bill as drafted rather than commenting on the process. Indeed it has gone through Parliament (Commons) so it can't all be bad.

My question to Hugh arose because I thought that if Labour is going to whinge abut migrant numbers they should not oppose a Bill that finishes the job that Boris failed to do.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm not "down on the Committee system" at all. I was asking Hugh what was wrong with the Bill as drafted rather than commenting on the process. Indeed it has gone through Parliament (Commons) so it can't all be bad.

My question to Hugh arose because I thought that if Labour is going to whinge abut migrant numbers they should not oppose a Bill that finishes the job that Boris failed to do.

What’s wrong with the Bill as drafted is that it has not had adequate scrutiny. At this stage the lack of process *is* the problem. The ‘Committee of the Whole House’ is a process used deliberately to shorten time set aside for scrutiny and the fact that it has happened that way rather than through a full select committee process gives us every right to be concerned that it could be all bad.

Unintended consequences can be disastrous, and we ought to expect thorough process from the sovereign law-making institution of the land.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

What’s wrong with the Bill as drafted is that it has not had adequate scrutiny. At this stage the lack of process *is* the problem. The ‘Committee of the Whole House’ is a process used deliberately to shorten time set aside for scrutiny and the fact that it has happened that way rather than through a full select committee process gives us every right to be concerned that it could be all bad.

Unintended consequences can be disastrous, and we ought to expect thorough process from the sovereign law-making institution of the land.

How do you know there's anything wrong with the Bill?
It's the process to which you seem to be objecting. Nothing wrong with scrutiny in Parliament, but it would be a fight between those who want t stop the boat people and those who side with the Arch Kent of Cant.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How do you know there's anything wrong with the Bill?
It's the process to which you seem to be objecting. Nothing wrong with scrutiny in Parliament, but it would be a fight between those who want t stop the boat people and those who side with the Arch Kent of Cant.

How do you know you can trust anything? If it is safety critical or liable to have other serious consequences then it is subject to regulations, tests and certifications. Through these, we may reasonably trust the product/service/whatever.

Your problem is you are asking the wrong question. It’s not whether I *know* there’s anything wrong with it; I am not an expert in legislation any more than I am an expert in food safety or medicines production. The question is whether I can *trust* that there’s nothing wrong with it. As it has not been subjected to the usual tests, I cannot trust it.

[Sephiroth]

You should read it for yourself and then decide if you like it. The MPs aren't any more qualified than you - they're just political players.

[1andrew1]

UK and EU agree to collaborate over cross-Channel migration

The EU and the UK have agreed to collaborate on curbing irregular migration across the English Channel in a further sign of warming relations after years of post-Brexit tension.

Brussels and London will negotiate a deal to exchange intelligence, expertise and personnel to combat smugglers after six months of deadlock over the plan.

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president, endorsed the idea of London working with Frontex, the EU border agency, at a meeting on the sidelines of the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavik.

“We need to do more to co-operate across borders and across jurisdictions to end illegal migration and stop the boats,” Sunak said.

Sunak has come under growing pressure from cabinet ministers and senior Tory MPs to tackle migrant crossings on the English Channel after bruising local election results when the party lost 1,000 council seats.

https://www.ft.com/content/4971f9be-...3-7f245266c1d3

[Jaymoss]

Didn't they already do that a few times then France did nowt?

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Didn't they already do that a few times then France did nowt?

No…

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No…

Well France did in March and nothing changed and seeing as they come from France mainly I see nothing changing ...

Link?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Link?

How many you want?

Agreement March 10th

https://www.asil.org/ILIB/uk-and-fra...itish%20Summit.

Agreement last November

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ossing-channel

July 2021

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-p...g-the-channel/

Each time costing us millions. Each time resulting in nothing