lkelly

Yes, but this would hit the politicians of these countries where it would hurt them: in their pockets!

I think this is an excellent idea. It should be adopted by UKIP at the earliest opportunity, i.e. afterany necessary checking out.

It could raise money from a new source: overseas corrupt politicians!

Surely this would be popular with everybody!

Biscuitman

How about we just weld up the doors of Westminster and leave the lunatics to rot?

__________________
IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

SGK

I agree completely that we should not trade with countries that we accept asylum seekers from. To grant asylum means we believe there are human rights violations stemming from the government in that country. I find trading with a government which we consider in this way morally wrong.

Of course it would hurt us as much as them, which is why we are trading with China etc despite the countries' regimes. But it has to be one or the other.

arden forester

The point is, Simon, that this Convention does not take INTO phpbb_account the global use of English and these asylum seekers only want to go where they can speak English as a second language. They are not going to do Italian, or Greek, or Spanish, or Dutch as a second language if they can help it.

By the way, you did OK in French! Very good!! :wink:

Paul Birch

But as a rule it's not trading with the wrongdoing government (if it were there'd be no one left to trade with, even in the UK, since all governments tend to violate people's rights). It's trading with diverse persons who in general are neither much better nor much worse than us. Countries don't trade: people do.

SGK

True enough and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that trade sanctions don't deter dictatorships and only hurt the people. I still struggle with accepting that it is morally correct to trade with a country which we accept, officially, tortures its people.

Paul Birch

Look at it this way. How can it be wrong to do something that harms no one and benefits everyone? So what if some of those benefited don't deserve it? And, from the other side, how can it be right to prevent people from making trades that harm no one and benefit others? After all, if you as an individual disapprove of trade with a particular person, firm or country, the remedy is in your own hands - just don't buy those goods.