Bring Back Boris?

[Unlucky4Sum]

Explain then why Donald J. Trump was able to restore order on the US southern boarder so quickly by building a wall.

Except he really didn't build very much wall at all and nothing like the concrete wall he promised and as a result it gets hacksawed through regularly   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46748492

[papasmurf]

Explain then why Donald J. Trump was able to restore order on the US southern boarder so quickly by building a wall.

He didn't restore order and the wall was and is still only partially built.

[HallowedBrexit]

What % of immigration do you think people coming across in boats is?

90%?

50%?

10%?

It's less than 1%

The UK could sink every single small boat crossing the channel and it would reduce the immigration figures by less than 1%

What is the other 99%

People immigrating with legal visas - UK migrants returning home, students coming to study, people with work visas etc.

That is why the government can't get the immigration figures down.

For example our entire university sector is basically funded by foreign students.  The tuition fees of UK students basically break even. Almost all the "profit" UK universities make to invest in new facilities, research etc. That comes from the foreign students (higher) fees.

Cut off the flow of student visas (around 10% of immigration) you kill our university sector.

Kill that and a huge chunk of your R&D sector withers.

Kill the R&D sector, and you industrial sector will collapse.

So you're thinking "why can't the government stop some dingies?!"

The government are thinking "how do we stop a major part of our economy collapsing?"

Explain then why Donald J. Trump was able to restore order on the US southern boarder so quickly by building a wall. 

[BeElBeeBub]

And what is impossible about reducing immigration?  In Australia, they turned back the boats, and they stopped coming.

What % of immigration do you think people coming across in boats is?

90%?

50%?

10%?

It's less than 1%

The UK could sink every single small boat crossing the channel and it would reduce the immigration figures by less than 1%

What is the other 99%

People immigrating with legal visas - UK migrants returning home, students coming to study, people with work visas etc.

That is why the government can't get the immigration figures down. 

For example our entire university sector is basically funded by foreign students.  The tuition fees of UK students basically break even. Almost all the "profit" UK universities make to invest in new facilities, research etc. That comes from the foreign students (higher) fees.

Cut off the flow of student visas (around 10% of immigration) you kill our university sector.

Kill that and a huge chunk of your R&D sector withers.

Kill the R&D sector, and you industrial sector will collapse.

So you're thinking "why can't the government stop some dingies?!"

The government are thinking "how do we stop a major part of our economy collapsing?"

[Scott777]

Scott777 is refusing to consider the possibility that the government couldn't deliver the promised brexit benefits because they were always impossible to deliver.

And what is impossible about reducing immigration?  In Australia, they turned back the boats, and they stopped coming.

[Scott777]

What is so hard about reducing immigration is it's painful in the short term.  We've had decades of governments of all colours bowing to voter pressure to 'just deliver now'

If you are only looking at the long-term, it's very short-sighted.  If mass immigration is the ONLY solution to "short-term" issues (I assume you mean some job shortages), then when will it ever become fixed?  In the long-term, it will fuel population increase, and then we will still need more workers, especially for the aging population.

[BeElBeeBub]

Scott777 is refusing to consider the possibility that the government couldn't deliver the promised brexit benefits because they were always impossible to deliver.

Like the elderly relative angry that the Nigerian prince hasn't delivered the gold, it has become impossible for him to consider that there never was any gold in the first.place.

[Unlucky4Sum]

I will take your word for the former.  The latter, the REASON, is just your opinion.  There was no swerving.  The government did not want to implement the purpose of Brexit, which was less ties with the EU, less immigration.  That's obvious.  You claim it's because Brexit "could never deliver".  That's just your opinion.  What do you think is so hard about reducing immigration?  Therefore, they did not WANT to deliver, and therefore never wanted Brexit.  So why would you assume they wanted to block another referendum?

What is so hard about reducing immigration is it's painful in the short term.  We've had decades of governments of all colours bowing to voter pressure to 'just deliver now'

But Brexit lost us the Dublin agreement rights on repatriation of boat people.  And that was absolutely a foreseeable pain of Brexit which your Leave leads carefully didn't tell anyone about.

[Scott777]

The problem for Yanukovich was he's promised EU membership for Ukraine and the EU was never going to give that to such a bed of corruption.  They offered a partnership but that also required Yanukovich behave to some political norms and he couldn't abide that.  So he turned East and that was a huge betrayal to his voters who increasingly protested.

Many years down the road Zelensky was fairly elected as President

Lots of governments betray voters.  Ours betray us all the time.  That's not why they had a revolution.  Do you honestly think people would cause a revolution because they so much love the EU?  We know NATO and the CIA were in Ukraine in 2014.  The revolution was a coup d'etat to bring about EU / NATO expansion.  It's funny how newspapers were full of the corruption in Ukraine, just before Putin invaded, and you think Zelensky was "fairly" elected?

[Scott777]

Which is to swerve off the point at hand, you do that a lot.

But then the slow realisation that Brexit could never deliver all you were misled to believe it could must be causing you such stress it's no surprise you can't think straight anymore.

So back to the point do you accept:

- that 2011 Act was a referendum interlocked block on the UK accepting any increase in EU powers?

- that the reason it was repealed was the wording of it actually would have forced a second In/Out referendum

I will take your word for the former.  The latter, the REASON, is just your opinion.  There was no swerving.  The government did not want to implement the purpose of Brexit, which was less ties with the EU, less immigration.  That's obvious.  You claim it's because Brexit "could never deliver".  That's just your opinion.  What do you think is so hard about reducing immigration?  Therefore, they did not WANT to deliver, and therefore never wanted Brexit.  So why would you assume they wanted to block another referendum?

[Unlucky4Sum]

No, I don't think your facts are correct, so I won't take any of your post at face value.  "The decision was preceded by a big snub to the EU when the parliament in Kiev rejected six pieces of legislation aimed at meeting the EU's main terms for the deal."  So the deal was not ultimately agreed by parliament.  Try not to spread any more disinformation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-preparations-eu-trade-pact

The problem for Yanukovich was he's promised EU membership for Ukraine and the EU was never going to give that to such a bed of corruption.  They offered a partnership but that also required Yanukovich behave to some political norms and he couldn't abide that.  So he turned East and that was a huge betrayal to his voters who increasingly protested.

Many years down the road Zelensky was fairly elected as President

[Unlucky4Sum]

The wonderful government completely failed to deliver the crucial reasons for wanting to leave the EU, such as less immigration.  Are you really suggesting they did that because they really wanted to leave?  Or is it possible they lied.  Now have a little think before you reply.  A Tory government (that's your favourite type) being honest....... or not?

Which is to swerve off the point at hand, you do that a lot. 
 
But then the slow realisation that Brexit could never deliver all you were misled to believe it could must be causing you such stress it's no surprise you can't think straight anymore.
 
So back to the point do you accept:

- that 2011 Act was a referendum interlocked block on the UK accepting any increase in EU powers?

- that the reason it was repealed was the wording of it actually would have forced a second In/Out referendum 

[Scott777]

You really suggesting that 2 years after the referendum the Leave government repealed that 2011 Act ' because they wanted the chance of another referendum'

Something they fought against and that Act would actually have virtually guaranteed

FFS do think through what you post

The wonderful government completely failed to deliver the crucial reasons for wanting to leave the EU, such as less immigration.  Are you really suggesting they did that because they really wanted to leave?  Or is it possible they lied.  Now have a little think before you reply.  A Tory government (that's your favourite type) being honest....... or not?

[Scott777]

You forgot that Yanukovych fled after riots caused by him refusing rarify an association agreement that he had been in favour of and had been voted for by the Ukrainian parliament (315 out of 349 MPs)

I'd have thought you'd be massively in favour of the will of parliament being sovereign.

He changed his mind after  (to use his reported words) "russian economic pressure and blackmail"

After his removal Poroshenko become prez and then he lost overwhelmingly (no I don't mean 52 to 48) to Zelenskyy.

Hardly fits your "He was installed because he is pro EU and pro NATO, after president Yanukovych was removed for being against both." Narrative.

Maybe, just maybe the people of Ukraine can see a good idea when it's out next to them.

Let me ask you this

The UK *has* to chose - be part of the EU or join the Russian federation.

What would you prefer? Which option would you vote for?

No, I don't think your facts are correct, so I won't take any of your post at face value.  "The decision was preceded by a big snub to the EU when the parliament in Kiev rejected six pieces of legislation aimed at meeting the EU's main terms for the deal."  So the deal was not ultimately agreed by parliament.  Try not to spread any more disinformation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-preparations-eu-trade-pact

[Unlucky4Sum]

Yes, I can join the dots.  It was repealed because they wanted the chance of another referendum, because we have a pro EU establishment.  Or I suppose you have a better reason that Boris completely failed to deal with mass immigration.

You really suggesting that 2 years after the referendum the Leave government repealed that 2011 Act ' because they wanted the chance of another referendum'
 
Something they fought against and that Act would actually have virtually guaranteed
 
FFS do think through what you post