• The post you are reporting:
   
  One will never 'solve it' Keef, the same as we will never solve homelessness or child poverty which exist in every country on this planet.
  
  However to say we can't do anything to improve the situation is the politics of despair.
  
  Is the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol still fit for purpose? It was designed to deal with displaced Europeans post WW2 NOT trans-continental migration.
  
  Why do we interpret the 1951 convention so liberally? In 2023 in Japan under the same Convention, 13,823 applied for Refugee status. However, only 303 people were accepted. In Japan, all applications are handled by the Japan Immigration Bureau, and it can be said that they have a stronger stance on 'controlling' rather than protecting refugees. Would a 'stronger stance' be acceptable to British voters?
  
  Should we remain in the ECHR (another left-over from post WW2 idealism) which gives courts control over parliament? Most countries are NOT members yet such as New Zealand do not seem to have turned fascist in its absence?
  
  Much easier to 'smash the gangs' to 'stop the boats' and other three word phrases that went down well with focus groups.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason