The Andy Burnham Thread

[c_cubed51]

A thread on which to comment on Andy Burham's performances as UK Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham invites Tory and Lib Dem leaders for urgent talks to fix crisis-hit social care sector

I think this is a good move on his part. The politics of co-operation and coalition appeal to me a lot more than those of conflict and competition.

Perhaps this is why he has chosen not to invite the leaders of the Green and Reform parties?

May these cross-party talks be fruitful in improving the NHS and other social care organizations, in the best interests of all UK residents.

[rowlf]

From what I have read, I don't know Andy Burham from having any different political leaning from Stymie.

In saying that, how is going to be able to 'move the mountains' that the past PM could not?

In my simple mind you talk about improving things that will cost money. Will this necessitate a further increase in taxes.

What exactly are the best interests of all UK residents? I did notice you said 'residents' not citizens. Are they one and the same?

[ruby]

11 minutes ago, rowlf said:

From what I have read, I don't know Andy Burham from having any different political leaning from Stymie.

In saying that, how is going to be able to 'move the mountains' that the past PM could not?

In my simple mind you talk about improving things that will cost money. Will this necessitate a further increase in taxes.

What exactly are the best interests of all UK residents? I did notice you said 'residents' not citizens. Are they one and the same?

Unfortunately, his predecessor and Rach spent all the money and maxed out the credit card. All what he wants to do costs big money so he has a bit of an issue. Meanwhile the boats keep on coming.

[Lynn and John]

Andy Burnham should be having urgent talks about stopping the automatic early release of some prisoners in September.  Only just over a month to September so the issue of early release of prisoners is more important now than fixing social care. 

[c_cubed51]

45 minutes ago, rowlf said:

I did notice you said 'residents' not citizens. Are they one and the same?

As I have pointed out to you before, people such as I, who are legally resident in the UK and who pay taxes are eligible to vote in the UK. 

An alien concept in the USA, it seems.

[c_cubed51]

6 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

Andy Burnham should be having urgent talks about stopping the automatic early release of some prisoners in September.  Only just over a month to September so the issue of early release of prisoners is more important now than fixing social care. 

I'm almost certain that he is attending to this issue as we speak.

[ruby]

8 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

I'm almost certain that he is attending to this issue as we speak.

I doubt it, that is another issue he has, the prisons are full. So there is not a lot he can do. 

[Lynn and John]

4 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

I'm almost certain that he is attending to this issue as we speak.

We are so impressed that you must have a direct line of communication  to Andy Burnham in order to justify making such a comment. Perhaps you're the alter ego of either Larry the cat or Axel the dog?

 

4 hours ago, ruby said:

I doubt it, that is another issue he has, the prisons are full. So there is not a lot he can do. 

It's clear that Andy Burnham is out of his depth. He's so desperate to justify his unworthy position as prime minister that he feels the need to make daily announcements of what he's doing.  All is announcements so far have just been meaningful bluster. Our country is in dire straits under the clueless leadership of this inadequate useless want to be.

[c_cubed51]

28 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

It's clear that Andy Burnham is out of his depth. He's so desperate to justify his unworthy position as prime minister that he feels the need to make daily announcements of what he's doing.  All is announcements so far have just been meaningful bluster. Our country is in dire straits under the clueless leadership of this inadequate useless want to be.

Andy Burnham puts Labour Party at the top of the UK polls in just one week

Those sharing your opinion are presently in a minority. I think he'll last a bit longer than a lettuce and be a bit more effective.

[rowlf]

11 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Andy Burnham puts Labour Party at the top of the UK polls in just one week

Those sharing your opinion are presently in a minority. I think he'll last a bit longer than a lettuce and be a bit more effective.

Hmm... wasn't it the same with Stymie?

[Lynn and John]

19 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Andy Burnham puts Labour Party at the top of the UK polls in just one week

Those sharing your opinion are presently in a minority. I think he'll last a bit longer than a lettuce and be a bit more effective.

Keir Starmer's poll rating received a boost during his first few weeks as prime minister. That didn't last long. We don't care if are opinions are currently in the minority at the moment. We know it won't be long before the majority agree with us that Andy Burnham is another useless Labour prime minister doing damage to our country.

[ruby]

37 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Andy Burnham puts Labour Party at the top of the UK polls in just one week

Those sharing your opinion are presently in a minority. I think he'll last a bit longer than a lettuce and be a bit more effective.

Yes he certainly is which is why he should call a General Election now. Of course he is he been doing give a ways that don't amount to much but can fool the General public. The longer he waits the more people will realise that the give a ways don't amount to much. So we shall see. Even with his mammoth lead it doesn't give him a clear majority.

[c_cubed51]

43 minutes ago, ruby said:

Yes he certainly is which is why he should call a General Election now. Of course he is he been doing give a ways that don't amount to much but can fool the General public. The longer he waits the more people will realise that the give a ways don't amount to much. So we shall see. Even with his mammoth lead it doesn't give him a clear majority.

I don't think he will be as foolish as Theresa May, who called a general election and threw away a parliamentary majority. 

[ruby]

1 minute ago, c_cubed51 said:

I don't think he will be as foolish as Theresa May, who called a general election and threw away a parliamentary majority. 

I don't know, I watch various sources. On the one hand Reform at the moment is losing support and he thinks he has a lead, but if Nigel will get re elected and Reform will come roaring back especially if that boat count continues to rise. If he waits we all know the economy is not going to get any better. If he wants to survive, bin Net Zero, drill in the North Sea and use the money to build those council houses, it at least might make him a lot more popular. Then though you have the issue of the illegals, love or hate them they will go to the top of any housing list because they have nowhere to live. That is why when I was young the undesirables always seem to get a Council House before any one else, because they had nowhere else to live. That is where the issues start to rise, most of the PLP don't want to drill and they think Net Zero is the best thing since sliced bread.

If an economy is making tons of money Welfare is not an issue, but currently our economy isn't, so Welfare is a really big issue.

[Lynn and John]

8 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

I don't think he will be as foolish as Theresa May, who called a general election and threw away a parliamentary majority. 

Theresa May didn't have enough majority to get Brexit done which is why she called a general election. It wasn't  foolish for Theresa May to call a general election when she had a big lead in the polls. However,Theresa May lost her narrow majority due to a disastrous election campaign which highlighted  social reform. She lost her majority because too many voters were worried that they would lose their family home to fund their care when they became older. On the other hand Boris Johnson called a general election which he won after only a few months as prime minister. Andy Burnham unlike both Theresa May and Boris Johnson doesn't need to call an early general because he has a massive Labour party majority. 

[Tone50]

He can drill in the North Sea all he wants The rigs out there are owned by foreign companies 

I worked on the rigs for 20 years but never for a UK oil company, The industry was sold off in the eighties for a fast profit, unlike the Norwegians who have a state owned oil industry and are a very wealthy country.

Politically there isn’t a party I’d vote for , To me Labour have forgotten about the working man and woman, Kemi seems ok but she was all for sending our troops to help Trump in Iran and tbh I think brexit hasn’t been are will be a good thing

Nigel i wouldn’t buy a used car off him , Would you ?

[Lynn and John]

33 minutes ago, Tone50 said:

He can drill in the North Sea all he wants The rigs out there are owned by foreign companies 

I worked on the rigs for 20 years but never for a UK oil company, The industry was sold off in the eighties for a fast profit, unlike the Norwegians who have a state owned oil industry and are a very wealthy country.

Politically there isn’t a party I’d vote for , To me Labour have forgotten about the working man and woman, Kemi seems ok but she was all for sending our troops to help Trump in Iran and tbh I think brexit hasn’t been are will be a good thing

Nigel i wouldn’t buy a used car off him , Would you ?

We think you're are correct about North Sea oil because the oil is sold on international markets meaning there is no benefit to UK residents. We also wouldn't buy a used car from Nigel Farage because he's not an expert about used cars and doesn't used cars.

[ruby]

37 minutes ago, Tone50 said:

He can drill in the North Sea all he wants The rigs out there are owned by foreign companies 

I worked on the rigs for 20 years but never for a UK oil company, The industry was sold off in the eighties for a fast profit, unlike the Norwegians who have a state owned oil industry and are a very wealthy country.

Politically there isn’t a party I’d vote for , To me Labour have forgotten about the working man and woman, Kemi seems ok but she was all for sending our troops to help Trump in Iran and tbh I think brexit hasn’t been are will be a good thing

Nigel i wouldn’t buy a used car off him , Would you ?

True but you would have paid British tax as will have the rig owner. If you don't drill, you get nothing. That is why the country is in a state, heavy industries generally pay well as the jobs are dangerous and not very pleasant, so the average employee pays lots of tax, now if you fast forward to their replacement which is distribution centres where the employee makes barely enough to live as is probably claiming Universal Credit to make up their wages to feed their family. We noticed it when they shut the Fiesta line in Dagenham.

[ruby]

4 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

We think you're are correct about North Sea oil because the oil is sold on international markets meaning there is no benefit to UK residents. We also wouldn't buy a used car from Nigel Farage because he's not an expert about used cars and doesn't used cars.

We get the tax which is not unsubstantial. I am very wary about buying a used car off anyone. I got sold a duff one by a relation.

[c_cubed51]

10 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

Theresa May didn't have enough majority to get Brexit done which is why she called a general election. It wasn't  foolish for Theresa May to call a general election when she had a big lead in the polls. However,Theresa May lost her narrow majority due to a disastrous election campaign which highlighted  social reform. She lost her majority because too many voters were worried that they would lose their family home to fund their care when they became older. On the other hand Boris Johnson called a general election which he won after only a few months as prime minister. Andy Burnham unlike both Theresa May and Boris Johnson doesn't need to call an early general because he has a massive Labour party majority. 

You are correct. Andy Burnham does have enough majority to get his policies done, so no need to call a general election.

In the UK, the Party wins an election and the Party chooses its leader. This is why it is relatively easy to get rid of an unpopular leader, which I consider to be a GOOD thing.

If Andy's policies prove to be unpopular, he, too, will be sent packing. On the other hand, if they prove popular and succeed in their stated crowd-pleasing objectives, then he will remain as leader until the next scheduled General Election, which he might even win.

Que sera sera.

[ECCouple]

18 hours ago, ruby said:

Unfortunately, his predecessor and Rach spent all the money and maxed out the credit card. All what he wants to do costs big money so he has a bit of an issue. Meanwhile the boats keep on coming.

But the number of people arriving on ‘the boats’ is down significantly - by about 40% this year to date -  surely you know that? And you don’t have to trust the government or even the BBC, you might prefer the Migration Observatory at Oxford University?

 

[ruby]

1 hour ago, ECCouple said:

But the number of people arriving on ‘the boats’ is down significantly - by about 40% this year to date -  surely you know that? And you don’t have to trust the government or even the BBC, you might prefer the Migration Observatory at Oxford University?

 

How could I not know that, AB constantly tells me. Even at 40 % down the numbers are significant. I get the opinion that the smugglers are currently changing their tactics so this may well be the lull, although as we approach winter the numbers will drop anyway.

[nylon10]

Wow he has only been in for a matter of weeks. This is what is wrong with our society right now. He is the PM of the UK not the football manager of Real Madrid.

Is he the answer? Maybe, does he have a mandate legally yes. Our system you vote for your MP not the leader of the Parliament. 

Do I personally thing he will do well? Nope, because and I am not really an independence kind of guy. However, you can clearly see the 4 kingdoms are starting to pull away from each other and hold different values. I also believe in this current period of the UK, you have a lot of misinformation (from both sides) that feeds a view that leads people down more entrenched postions.

Like for example if you are in middle England you hear that we are losing our country. This may or may not be true. However, what is true is we don`t have this issue in Scotland. So, how does Burnham tackle this.... I think if Burnham wants to keep the UK together; perhaps it is time that he looks at setting up an English only Parliament. Yes it adds on another level of devolution but it means that England can make calls that only effect them and that help guide them. Because I think more and more we are seeing the drift away.

Then Burnham can focus on the big calls that effect the UK as a whole. It might just work although I have my doubts.      

[c_cubed51]

Greater Manchester mayoral by-election: Full list of candidates

The by-election was caused by Andy Burnham's resignation.

I post this here because the article describes a voting system called SV, which differs from first-pastpthe-post and is arguably a fairer system (but in my view, not as fair as the Australian STV system).

Who will win? 

Who might have won under the FPTP system?

[Love All Nylon]

5 hours ago, ECCouple said:

But the number of people arriving on ‘the boats’ is down significantly - by about 40% this year to date -  surely you know that? And you don’t have to trust the government or even the BBC, you might prefer the Migration Observatory at Oxford University?

 

Yes it has and it's been quiet for a while until over 800 arrived during that last week or so. A reduction in numbers arriving is of course a good thing, but it needs to be reduced to zero before any celebrations are appropriate.

I don't believe that Andy has made any comment on his approach to the situation as of yet, unless I've missed that?

[ruby]

6 minutes ago, Love All Nylon said:

Yes it has and it's been quiet for a while until over 800 arrived during that last week or so. A reduction in numbers arriving is of course a good thing, but it needs to be reduced to zero before any celebrations are appropriate.

I don't believe that Andy has made any comment on his approach to the situation as of yet, unless I've missed that?

Yes he has, I think it was a couple of days ago. It seems he is not particularly bothered assuming the numbers are coming down by the policies Labour has put in place. cubed is right, the smugglers are finding things more difficult but just finding different ways. The only way you stop it,  it is by sending them back immediately, they are illegals. If they think they have a right to asylum, use the lawful channels.

[Love All Nylon]

Just now, ruby said:

Yes he has, I think it was a couple of days ago. It seems he is not particularly bothered assuming the numbers are coming down by the policies Labour has put in place. cubed is right, the smugglers are finding things more difficult but just finding different ways. The only way you stop it,  it is by sending them back immediately, they are illegals. If they think they have a right to asylum, use the lawful channels.

But unfortunately the do-gooders and sympathisers don't have that approach. And it's not right that that there are comments in the press blaming our government for the deaths of those drowned recently near Dunkirk. Blame the French authorities if anyone.  

[Jessica In Heels]

Crossings are down and that’s a good thing.  But what nobody seems to ever ask is what actually happens to the failed/prevented crossing cases?  Do you think the French deport them?  They don’t. If they could they would have already.  Do you think the French detain them?  Maybe for 24 hours.  And then back on the beaches to try try and again and again.

Reform etal have never said how they will send them back.  Or where ‘back’ even is.  To France?…that will require the agreement of the French….unless we intend to start smuggling them back to France ourselves in a similar manner to how they arrived.  Which is unlikely.  So without that agreement it doesn’t happen.  9 in 10 small boat arrivals are from counties that the UK can’t readily…or in some cases ever… return people to ..Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Syria are the main countries of origin.  We don’t have those agreements ( for Iraq we do but in a very limited context).  In most of those countries we have wither none or extremely tenuous diplomatic relations.  How do Reform intend to return any of these people to these places?

I don’t ask this out of some joyous celebration of the collective failure of many governments over the last few decades to get a grip on this.  But Reform and the like are quick to say ‘send them back’ but there is never any substance or detail.  In the same way Labour and the Tories are gonna ‘smash the gangs’. It’s just words.  
 

These statements appeals to the base instincts of Reform voters, living in world where Britannia rules, and colonials do as they are told,…..imagining the Royal Navy sailing back to Dunkirk and dropping off 10000 un-documented whoever’s…does anyone really expect  that is how this is resolved?

Edited July 30 by Jessica In Heels

[rowlf]

Why does it take a member of the Tory Party to say what needs to be done?

National security should be on the top of Andy's list on what needs to be done in your country.

But, but, but he is a Tory. Yuck!

Hasn't anyone read 'The Art of the Deal'?

 

[nylon10]

20 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Why does it take a member of the Tory Party to say what needs to be done?

National security should be on the top of Andy's list on what needs to be done in your country.

But, but, but he is a Tory. Yuck!

Hasn't anyone read 'The Art of the Deal'?

 

Why did the said tory not do anything when they were in power for about 14 years Mr Rowlf?

just asking. We act like this is a purely Labour issue.... it is not. fact is the tories (if you see this as a huge issue) did nowt about it. In fact was in not Jenrick who now he has joined reform seems to have all the answers yet when he was in charge did not/could not stop them.

[Jessica In Heels]

6 hours ago, rowlf said:

Why does it take a member of the Tory Party to say what needs to be done?

National security should be on the top of Andy's list on what needs to be done in your country.

But, but, but he is a Tory. Yuck!

Hasn't anyone read 'The Art of the Deal'?

 

Maybe a future edition of The Art of Deal will lift the lid of the multi dimensional negotiations he has brought to bear with Tehran.  Hopefully there will be a chapter titled ‘Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards’ in all future editions.  Quite the negotiatior.

If I’m honest though, I found ‘Commander in Cheat’ a much more enlightened read of Donald Trump and how he conducts himself.

Edited July 30 by Jessica In Heels

[Love All Nylon]

2 hours ago, Jessica In Heels said:

Crossings are down and that’s a good thing.  But what nobody seems to ever ask is what actually happens to the failed/prevented crossing cases?  Do you think the French deport them?  They don’t. If they could they would have already.  Do you think the French detain them?  Maybe for 24 hours.  And then back on the beaches to try try and again and again.

Reform etal have never said how they will send them back.  Or where ‘back’ even is.  To France?…that will require the agreement of the French….unless we intend to start smuggling them back to France ourselves in a similar manner to how they arrived.  Which is unlikely.  So without that agreement it doesn’t happen.  9 in 10 small boat arrivals are from counties that the UK can’t readily…or in some cases ever… return people to ..Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Syria are the main countries of origin.  We don’t have those agreements ( for Iraq we do but in a very limited context).  In most of those countries we have wither none or extremely tenuous diplomatic relations.  How do Reform intend to return any of these people to these places?

I don’t ask this out of some joyous celebration of the collective failure of many governments over the last few decades to get a grip on this.  But Reform and the like are quick to say ‘send them back’ but there is never any substance or detail.  In the same way Labour and the Tories are gonna ‘smash the gangs’. It’s just words.  
 

These statements appeals to the base instincts of Reform voters, living in world where Britannia rules, and colonials do as they are told,…..imagining the Royal Navy sailing back to Dunkirk and dropping off 10000 un-documented whoever’s…does anyone really expect  that is how this is resolved?

'Smashing the gangs' is an impossible task, I think that most people realise that.

So there's only one thing that's going to work and also put others off from bothering - as soon as a boat arrives, those on board are detained locally and floated off back to France within 24 hours and deposited on a beach. The necessary boats could be obtained at a cost of course, but far cheaper than feeding, clothing and housing them, let alone benefit payments for years in most cases.

The numbers would drop drastically in a short time. Just one problem, it'll never happen as no government is brave enough to do it so the problem will be never ending. 

[ruby]

4 minutes ago, Love All Nylon said:

'Smashing the gangs' is an impossible task, I think that most people realise that.

So there's only one thing that's going to work and also put others off from bothering - as soon as a boat arrives, those on board are detained locally and floated off back to France within 24 hours and deposited on a beach. The necessary boats could be obtained at a cost of course, but far cheaper than feeding, clothing and housing them, let alone benefit payments for years in most cases.

The numbers would drop drastically in a short time. Just one problem, it'll never happen as no government is brave enough to do it so the problem will be never ending. 

Yes, the Government has to send a message that if you come here illegally you do not stay. Our systems take so long to process them that they never get deported. The Government says they have deported 40,000 but were they the easy pickings, which if anything are ones that are not an issue. I thought the Rwanda scheme was a dumb idea but it achieved a lot. The illegals couldn't get out of here fast enough to get to Ireland. It might with some luck get sorted for us. The EU has decided it wants no more, so to get here they need to pass through an EU country. So if the French Police are told to protect their borders, they will so hopefully if they are not in France they can't come here. Reform may find it difficult to get rid of them, but at least they will try which the other parties don't.

[ruby]

Have you seen how many arrived yesterday, 752. This month could be a record.

[Alteredbhoy]

2 hours ago, ruby said:

Have you seen how many arrived yesterday, 752. This month could be a record.

Haha, that is hilarious. You should have put it on the predictions thread so that we could all have a good laugh.

So far in July, with two days to go, there have been just over 2,100 migrants crossing the Channel. The record for any month was August 2022 when over 8,600 crossed. For this month to break that record, it will need as many people to cross the Channel today and tomorrow as have crossed since Easter.

We are at less than a quarter of the record level with two days to go.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Or you are simply making shit up. Much as you did when you claimed we had record unemployment despite it only being a quarter of the record number.

The only record likely to be broken this month is the number of crossings is likely to be the fewest for July since the crisis caused by Brexit began.

[Love All Nylon]

17 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Haha, that is hilarious. You should have put it on the predictions thread so that we could all have a good laugh.

So far in July, with two days to go, there have been just over 2,100 migrants crossing the Channel. The record for any month was August 2022 when over 8,600 crossed. For this month to break that record, it will need as many people to cross the Channel today and tomorrow as have crossed since Easter.

We are at less than a quarter of the record level with two days to go.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Or you are simply making shit up. Much as you did when you claimed we had record unemployment despite it only being a quarter of the record number.

The only record likely to be broken this month is the number of crossings is likely to be the fewest for July since the crisis caused by Brexit began.

Let's all celebrate then - so the above numbers make it all okay do they? And, yet again, insulting someone because they don't have your view or have incorrect data to hand.

The point is, zero boats arriving is what we need and must achieve in some way or other.

[ruby]

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Haha, that is hilarious. You should have put it on the predictions thread so that we could all have a good laugh.

So far in July, with two days to go, there have been just over 2,100 migrants crossing the Channel. The record for any month was August 2022 when over 8,600 crossed. For this month to break that record, it will need as many people to cross the Channel today and tomorrow as have crossed since Easter.

We are at less than a quarter of the record level with two days to go.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Or you are simply making shit up. Much as you did when you claimed we had record unemployment despite it only being a quarter of the record number.

The only record likely to be broken this month is the number of crossings is likely to be the fewest for July since the crisis caused by Brexit began.

Amazing that took you an awful long time for you to respond. It is nothing to do with Brexit, Spain today is having exactly the same issue. Remind me, isn't Spain part of the EU so Brexit isn't the issue. As someone pointed out today the EU is not interested in borders, so Brexit is irrelevant. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[rowlf]

7 hours ago, nylon10 said:

Why did the said tory not do anything when they were in power for about 14 years Mr Rowlf?

just asking. We act like this is a purely Labour issue.... it is not. fact is the tories (if you see this as a huge issue) did nowt about it. In fact was in not Jenrick who now he has joined reform seems to have all the answers yet when he was in charge did not/could not stop them.

Could any of the PM's have accomplished it by themselves? Wasn't it the politicals that wouldn't allow Stymie to pass bills, make reforms? I suppose this would give the people the incentive for during away with these layers of gov and rely mostly on the federal gov to legislate these laws.

Isn't that why Brexit happened?

Trump stopped illegal immigration by using executive order. It was the law and he was upholding it. And he is still doing so.

Before Biden, nobody abused the law. Whoever made the decisions for Biden went crazy on immigration. The excuse was that Biden needed congressional approval. That was a lie.

Because of his 2021-2025 regime a lot of mayhem was created. For US citizens, for the illegals during his term, and especially for those that have been here for decades. Those are truly the sorrowful stories. However, many of those in the former group showed bad behavior. If they worked at all they were paid under the table. Virtually all of them were on Medicaid (welfare). Often, the women were impregnated and became pregnant, and the state had to provide for them and the children produced.

That this does happen in our society should be of a surprise to no one.

[c_cubed51]

8 hours ago, rowlf said:

Trump stopped illegal immigration by using executive order. It was the law and he was upholding it. And he is still doing so.

But what Agent Orange did was both illegal and inhumane. Are his cronies beginning to abandon him?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/trump-suffers-double-blow-with-two-court-losses-in-one-day-the-dam-has-broken/ar-AA295qIU?ocid=

At least here in the UK those crossing the channel illegally are treated according to the law, and humanely. And the UK doesn't even claim to be a Christian country.

ICE reportedly moves to shield 5,500 detention beds from state health and safety oversight

See what I mean? 

Edited July 31 by c_cubed51

[Alteredbhoy]

9 hours ago, ruby said:

Amazing that took you an awful long time for you to respond. It is nothing to do with Brexit, Spain today is having exactly the same issue. Remind me, isn't Spain part of the EU so Brexit isn't the issue. As someone pointed out today the EU is not interested in borders, so Brexit is irrelevant. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Haha, that's another hilarious post.

You completely ignore the main point of my post that your claim that July's figures could well be the record number is as implausible and frankly stupid as it is possible to be. Then you pick up on an aside about Brexit and try to deflect from the implausibility of your claim by making a similarly implausible correlation between migration from the EU to the UK after we had abandoned the Dublin Agreement and migration into the EU that has never been subject to the Dublin Agreement.

You are right in one respect though. Brexit has nothing to do with the migration over the land border between Morocco and Spain. Well done.

Otherwise you are floundering around like a whale in a bath tub.

Edited July 31 by Alteredbhoy