|
Post by maxplonk on Nov 16, 2023 9:46:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 16, 2023 10:29:13 GMT
I don't see how you can say the PM concocting a new legally binding treaty with Rwanda and declaring them a safe state isn't foreign policy 🤔. It is all about immigration and stopping the boats. It relates to the Home Office drafted bill sponsored by the now former Hone Secretary, Suella Braverman, called the Illegal Migration Bill. It is about supposedly stopping the boats of asylum seekers. It is about immigration far more than about foreign policy. Else it would have been a foreign office minister and not the Home Sec speaking in the Commons about it yesterday. It impacts on foreign policy because it badly damages our reputation and standing in the world. I didn't need the lesson, but thanks. Your original point was both issues were a waste of HoC time and we should be focusing on domestic issues. I disagree in so far as these issues impact our standing in the world and they aren't just "dick measuring" as you claim. The Government has now turned an asylum issue from the Home Office into a Foreign Policy issue by creating a stupid legal device. Setting up a treaty and unilaterally claiming Rwanda to be safe in contradiction of all the evidence from the police and others. Additionally, the Government abstaining from UN votes on Gaza and domestically supporting an extended war in the Middle East by implication is something that citizens of the UK should care about. That's why I disagree with your original point of view that it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 16, 2023 11:08:10 GMT
It's pure Orwell isn't it? Their contempt for us is just staggering.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 11:18:38 GMT
It is all about immigration and stopping the boats. It relates to the Home Office drafted bill sponsored by the now former Hone Secretary, Suella Braverman, called the Illegal Migration Bill. It is about supposedly stopping the boats of asylum seekers. It is about immigration far more than about foreign policy. Else it would have been a foreign office minister and not the Home Sec speaking in the Commons about it yesterday. It impacts on foreign policy because it badly damages our reputation and standing in the world. I didn't need the lesson, but thanks. Your original point was both issues were a waste of HoC time and we should be focusing on domestic issues. I disagree in so far as these issues impact our standing in the world and they aren't just "dick measuring" as you claim. The Government has now turned an asylum issue from the Home Office into a Foreign Policy issue by creating a stupid legal device. Setting up a treaty and unilaterally claiming Rwanda to be safe in contradiction of all the evidence from the police and others. Additionally, the Government abstaining from UN votes on Gaza and domestically supporting an extended war in the Middle East by implication is something that citizens of the UK should care about. That's why I disagree with your original point of view that it's irrelevant. Fair enough. I just don’t see what is important about a SNP amendment to the King’s Speech that was never, ever going to pass. The government abstaining from the UN votes are of far more significance and importance, but have barely made the press compared with shadow cabinet resignations over a vote which is entirely designed for political purposes rather than for the good of the country. It is playing politics. It doesn’t help in Gaza. The UN votes were far more important for foreign policy and I stand by it being a waste of Commons time. Until we see the contents of the mystery treaty, I don’t know whether it will be primarily a foreign policy matter, a Home Office matter or a trade matter (or most likely some sort of combination). Ultimately it is about immigration and deporting a drop in the ocean of migrants that come here. It is irrelevant and a massive distraction to more important matters of government business that I think should be dictating focus of our leaders. Again, it is a waste of time. This government in particular loves a culture war above everything else.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 16, 2023 11:23:35 GMT
It's pure Orwell isn't it? Their contempt for us is just staggering. And wheeling Cameron in as foreign Secretary just to reaffirm they don't give a single fook what we think. So many unelected people making massive decisions on the nations behalf. Its crazy. I guess Cameron is back for a last 12 month grift to trouser of few more Greensill type deals or sell a book or summat. And he will be in prime position to be leader of the opposition come next October. That's all it is I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 16, 2023 11:49:22 GMT
The position a country would (or should) take on the international stage and at the UN does make a difference. How the country abides by legally binding commitments impacts future treaties and relations. Foreign policy does matter to the British electorate. The public rarely hits the streets in numbers on domestic issues like they do when they disagree with international affairs. Yes, but then have an adult debate about it. The votes on Gaza were always going to lose and were entirely for the purpose of giving Starmer a headache. There was no other purpose. The SNP wanted to humiliate Starmer, not bring about a ceasefire. They knew their amendment would lose and so the signal to the world is that it is absolutely clear the UK does not support a ceasefire. So well done SNP for getting that confirmed and on Hansard. And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy. Rwanda and Israel has everything to do with Foreign Policy There was a thread recently about how influential UK was in the World i.e. it's ability to exercise Soft Power by influencing other Countries to follow it's example Well after yesterday UK has firmly stuck it's colours to the mast that it doesn't believe in following International Law and is prepared to break any agreement it has signed up to if they are inconvenient. Furthermore it fully supports other Countries who are potentially committing War Crimes. If you were given this Profile of a Country without knowing which it was, how would you describe it? In future trade negotiations do you think other Countries are more or less likely to have trust in UK or in military conflicts more or less likely to heed anything UK may say to mitigate excesses.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 16, 2023 15:23:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Nov 16, 2023 15:42:13 GMT
Am I missing something.
How can you pass a law to declare a country safe or not.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 16, 2023 16:03:28 GMT
Pleased to see the UK government's independant inquiry on corruption has concluded today.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 16, 2023 16:49:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 16:56:07 GMT
Yes, but then have an adult debate about it. The votes on Gaza were always going to lose and were entirely for the purpose of giving Starmer a headache. There was no other purpose. The SNP wanted to humiliate Starmer, not bring about a ceasefire. They knew their amendment would lose and so the signal to the world is that it is absolutely clear the UK does not support a ceasefire. So well done SNP for getting that confirmed and on Hansard. And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy. Rwanda and Israel has everything to do with Foreign Policy There was a thread recently about how influential UK was in the World i.e. it's ability to exercise Soft Power by influencing other Countries to follow it's example Well after yesterday UK has firmly stuck it's colours to the mast that it doesn't believe in following International Law and is prepared to break any agreement it has signed up to if they are inconvenient. Furthermore it fully supports other Countries who are potentially committing War Crimes. If you were given this Profile of a Country without knowing which it was, how would you describe it? In future trade negotiations do you think other Countries are more or less likely to have trust in UK or in military conflicts more or less likely to heed anything UK may say to mitigate excesses. I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 16:57:09 GMT
Am I missing something. How can you pass a law to declare a country safe or not. You can, but it doesn’t make the country safe. I don’t think this will fool a Supreme Court judge anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 16, 2023 17:00:39 GMT
Rwanda and Israel has everything to do with Foreign Policy There was a thread recently about how influential UK was in the World i.e. it's ability to exercise Soft Power by influencing other Countries to follow it's example Well after yesterday UK has firmly stuck it's colours to the mast that it doesn't believe in following International Law and is prepared to break any agreement it has signed up to if they are inconvenient. Furthermore it fully supports other Countries who are potentially committing War Crimes. If you were given this Profile of a Country without knowing which it was, how would you describe it? In future trade negotiations do you think other Countries are more or less likely to have trust in UK or in military conflicts more or less likely to heed anything UK may say to mitigate excesses. I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The primary reason was to call for a ceasefire after the SNPs leaders family have just spent weeks being bombed in Gaza. Kier Starmer made things difficult for himself. Nobody else. Innocent people being murdered daily in Gaza is very much an important issue. Its life or death... probably much more important than many other issues right now.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:12:51 GMT
I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The primary reason was to call for a ceasefire after the SNPs leaders family have just spent weeks being bombed in Gaza. Kier Starmer made things difficult for himself. Nobody else. Innocent people being murdered daily in Gaza is very much an important issue. Its life or death... probably much more important than many other issues right now. I am not saying it isn’t an important issue. But the UN votes by our government were far more important on the issue. The SNP never in a million years thought their amendment would pass because it was opposed by the two biggest parties. They never thought that Israel and Hamas would go “you know what, the SNP are right. We need to have a ceasefire”. It was only about trying to win over some voters in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 16, 2023 17:29:28 GMT
Am I missing something. How can you pass a law to declare a country safe or not. You can, but it doesn’t make the country safe. I don’t think this will fool a Supreme Court judge anytime soon. Indeed. You can pass a law to say the moon is made of green cheese - but it doesn't mean it is. However the fact that our government is going down this road is indicative of where we are and how those in charge inhabit a parallel universe. It's on a par with appointing horses as senators and ordering the tide not to come in.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 16, 2023 17:39:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:43:40 GMT
You can, but it doesn’t make the country safe. I don’t think this will fool a Supreme Court judge anytime soon. Indeed. You can pass a law to say the moon is made of green cheese - but it doesn't mean it is. However the fact that our government is going down this road is indicative of where we are and how those in charge inhabit a parallel universe. It's on a par with appointing horses as senators and ordering the tide not to come in. Why don’t we pass a law saying Hamas and Israel will live in peace for the rest of time? That sorts the middle east conflict. Easy!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 16, 2023 18:48:20 GMT
Rwanda and Israel has everything to do with Foreign Policy There was a thread recently about how influential UK was in the World i.e. it's ability to exercise Soft Power by influencing other Countries to follow it's example Well after yesterday UK has firmly stuck it's colours to the mast that it doesn't believe in following International Law and is prepared to break any agreement it has signed up to if they are inconvenient. Furthermore it fully supports other Countries who are potentially committing War Crimes. If you were given this Profile of a Country without knowing which it was, how would you describe it? In future trade negotiations do you think other Countries are more or less likely to have trust in UK or in military conflicts more or less likely to heed anything UK may say to mitigate excesses. I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The decisions themselves are what's important In the Supreme Court Judgement if Rwanda Policy was pursued it would have placed UK outside ECHR alongside Russia and Belarus. It went further to say it would contravene UN Conventions on Refugees, Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and abolish not just the UK Human Rights Act but also domestic asylum legislation from 1993 and 2002 which would put UK alongside North Korea It is inconceivable that Government Legal opinion would not have told them that and yet they chose to pursue it. That is the position UK is presenting Internationally I made no comment on Labour, they are not in Government. The Government position on Gaza is to call for Humanitarian Pauses which contrasts with Macron's, arguably a closer allay of Israel, call for a Ceasefire a week ago at a Peace Conference in Paris Surely you must accept both policies will be taken into account by other Countries dealings with UK in the future I'm sure you're aware that Lib Dems Voted in favour of SNP Amendment
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:51:39 GMT
I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The decisions themselves are what's important In the Supreme Court Judgement if Rwanda Policy was pursued it would have placed UK outside ECHR alongside Russia and Belarus. It went further to say it would contravene UN Conventions on Refugees, Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and abolish not just the UK Human Rights Act but also domestic asylum legislation from 1993 and 2002 which would put UK alongside North Korea It is inconceivable that Government Legal opinion would not have told them that and yet they chose to pursue it. That is the position UK is presenting Internationally I made no comment on Labour, they are not in Government. The Government position on Gaza is to call for Humanitarian Pauses which contrasts with Macron's, arguably a closer allay of Israel, call for a Ceasefire a week ago at a Peace Conference in Paris Surely you must accept both policies will be taken into account by other Countries dealings with UK in the future I'm sure you're aware that Lib Dems Voted in favour of SNP Amendment They have an impact on how the world sees us, but that wasn’t the most important thing in either issue. The world thinks we are a bit of joke since brexit anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2023 18:52:47 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/business-67439675In contrast to the thread theme, this is actually something that I can get behind. Good to see them doing something that is basic and logical for a change. People who don’t work in the long-term (and seek benefits) should be provided access to work experience to make them more attractive to future employers.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 16, 2023 19:34:33 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/business-67439675In contrast to the thread theme, this is actually something that I can get behind. Good to see them doing something that is basic and logical for a change. People who don’t work in the long-term (and seek benefits) should be provided access to work experience to make them more attractive to future employers. Another dead cat 😿 you will note the Article says it hopes legislation may be passed by end of Next Year i.e. most likely after GE It wasn't in the King's Speech so will be given no legislative priority I expect quite a few more felines will be killed before next GE whether it takes place in Spring or Autumn
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2023 19:42:45 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/business-67439675In contrast to the thread theme, this is actually something that I can get behind. Good to see them doing something that is basic and logical for a change. People who don’t work in the long-term (and seek benefits) should be provided access to work experience to make them more attractive to future employers. Another dead cat 😿 you will note the Article says it hopes legislation may be passed by end of Next Year i.e. most likely after GE It wasn't in the King's Speech so will be given no legislative priority I expect quite a few more felines will be killed before next GE whether it takes place in Spring or Autumn I wouldn’t be shocked if Starmer takes it up. I can’t see how it wouldn’t be popular. It just seems to make sense and is probably beneficial to those looking for jobs in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 16, 2023 22:21:56 GMT
Just watching the news, Cameron in Ukraine
I understand all the negativity around him but in this specific role I think he's probably the best person the Government could possibly come up with
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 16, 2023 22:29:10 GMT
Just watching the news, Cameron in Ukraine I understand all the negativity around him but in this specific role I think he's probably the best person the Government could possibly come up with Could Cameron stand at the next election as Tory leader? Is he viewed by the British public as a safe pair of hands? I've no idea. I guess comparitive to what we've got he'd appear competent.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 16, 2023 22:33:01 GMT
Just watching the news, Cameron in Ukraine I understand all the negativity around him but in this specific role I think he's probably the best person the Government could possibly come up with Could Cameron stand at the next election as Tory leader? Is he viewed by the British public as a safe pair of hands? I've no idea. I guess comparitive to what we've got he'd appear competent. He's not an MP so no The next Tory leader is on a hiding to nothing as post GE hammering they will full on go at each other for quite some time
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 16, 2023 23:02:56 GMT
Could Cameron stand at the next election as Tory leader? Is he viewed by the British public as a safe pair of hands? I've no idea. I guess comparitive to what we've got he'd appear competent. He's not an MP so no The next Tory leader is on a hiding to nothing as post GE hammering they will full on go at each other for quite some time Yeah but they can easily sort that out before the election. Not saying they will btw but surely they aren't going to just let Sunak sleepwalk into what is inevitably going to be a crushing defeat (assuming Labour doesn't self implode in the background over Gaza or something else which isn't an impossible scenario).
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Nov 16, 2023 23:22:58 GMT
It's pure Orwell isn't it? Their contempt for us is just staggering. Shameless denial.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 17, 2023 0:50:48 GMT
The decisions themselves are what's important In the Supreme Court Judgement if Rwanda Policy was pursued it would have placed UK outside ECHR alongside Russia and Belarus. It went further to say it would contravene UN Conventions on Refugees, Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and abolish not just the UK Human Rights Act but also domestic asylum legislation from 1993 and 2002 which would put UK alongside North Korea It is inconceivable that Government Legal opinion would not have told them that and yet they chose to pursue it. That is the position UK is presenting Internationally I made no comment on Labour, they are not in Government. The Government position on Gaza is to call for Humanitarian Pauses which contrasts with Macron's, arguably a closer allay of Israel, call for a Ceasefire a week ago at a Peace Conference in Paris Surely you must accept both policies will be taken into account by other Countries dealings with UK in the future I'm sure you're aware that Lib Dems Voted in favour of SNP Amendment They have an impact on how the world sees us, but that wasn’t the most important thing in either issue. The world thinks we are a bit of joke since brexit anyway. Your original point was "And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy" which was why I even entered the discussion You now acknowledge it does influence Foreign Policy but you caveat that it was unimportant which is subjective and which I disagree with you. You have now introduced a different element, Brexit, as a reason why UK may be considered Bat Shit crazy by other Countries. Whilst I agree with you on that point, Brexit was a decision by UK to self harm. Disregarding International Treaties when inconvenient can cause harm to other Countries so it's far more significant on International Relationships.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2023 7:55:55 GMT
They have an impact on how the world sees us, but that wasn’t the most important thing in either issue. The world thinks we are a bit of joke since brexit anyway. Your original point was "And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy" which was why I even entered the discussion You now acknowledge it does influence Foreign Policy but you caveat that it was unimportant which is subjective and which I disagree with you. You have now introduced a different element, Brexit, as a reason why UK may be considered Bat Shit crazy by other Countries. Whilst I agree with you on that point, Brexit was a decision by UK to self harm. Disregarding International Treaties when inconvenient can cause harm to other Countries so it's far more significant on International Relationships. Foreign policy didn’t affect the Rwanda policy intentionally. It was entirely about immigration and culture wars (it has backfired). Or are you saying you think the foreign office came up with a policy objective to hurt our standing in the world, and they then devised the Rwanda policy!? I know it cane from Suella and the Home Office (from people who work there). Foreign policy didn’t affect the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech, it was about humiliating Starmer (it worked well).
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 17, 2023 8:20:14 GMT
Just watching the news, Cameron in Ukraine I understand all the negativity around him but in this specific role I think he's probably the best person the Government could possibly come up with Could Cameron stand at the next election as Tory leader? Is he viewed by the British public as a safe pair of hands? I've no idea. I guess comparitive to what we've got he'd appear competent. Cameron is one of the few Tory MP's I admire. When you see all the shit that has followed him it makes you wonder how he managed to have a reasonably competent government in place for all those years. What's followed him has been beyond embarrassing and although I don't agree with the Tories much I never felt embarrassed about our politics under Cameron. Getting him in the cabinet is about the only competent thing I think I have seen from a Tory government since he left.
|
|