Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
First point; it is the responsibility of the country that picks them up to deal with them hence the refusal of the French to act.
Second point; didn’t know they did. Thought they brought it back here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
Second point; didn’t know they did. Thought they brought it back here.
Fair enough.First point; it is the responsibility of the country that picks them up to deal with them hence the refusal of the French to act.
Second point; didn’t know they did. Thought they brought it back here.
But if the UK Government decided to change that rule or law or understanding (not sure which it is) what could the French do about it? I mean we are ripping up the rule book on the N.I. agreement why not just go 'all-in' and change policy on this too. The Rwanda thing isn't going to work that is pretty obvious and yet the people are still coming.
Almost 500 more migrants crossed the English Channel over the weekend; 8,000+ already so far this year.
I bet they don't get 500 to Rwanda in the next five years, it was just hot air a few weeks before an election to appeal to the masses, yet looking at the performance of Labour, it sort of worked!
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
The French refuse to allow us to dock and put them ashore. Simple.Fair enough.
But if the UK Government decided to change that rule or understanding (not sure which it is) what could the French do about it? I mean we are ripping up the rule book on the N.I. agreement why not just go 'all-in' and change policy on this too. The Rwanda thing isn't going to work that is pretty obvious and yet the people are still coming.
Almost 500 more migrants crossed the English Channel over the weekend; 8,000+ already so far this year.
I bet they don't get 500 to Rwanda in the next five years, it was just hot air a few weeks before an election to appeal to the masses, yet looking at the performance of Labour, it sort of worked!
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 49,805
There is a simple fix. Allow people a legal pathway to claim assylum.Fair enough.
But if the UK Government decided to change that rule or law or understanding (not sure which it is) what could the French do about it? I mean we are ripping up the rule book on the N.I. agreement why not just go 'all-in' and change policy on this too. The Rwanda thing isn't going to work that is pretty obvious and yet the people are still coming.
Almost 500 more migrants crossed the English Channel over the weekend; 8,000+ already so far this year.
I bet they don't get 500 to Rwanda in the next five years, it was just hot air a few weeks before an election to appeal to the masses, yet looking at the performance of Labour, it sort of worked!
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
This is a serious question, please don't come at me. If a Navy vessel, or a Border force vessel intercepts a boat in the middle of the channel, why do they bring it to the UK - why don't they just take the people back to France?
Follow-up question: I read recently (I think I read, might have misremembered) that once people had been dropped off at a port on the south coast, their dinghy was towed back to France.... that can't be right surely. Rescue the people yes, but sink the empty dinghy or else it is just inviting more people to take the risk all over again. If they destroy the boat whats going to happen, be sued by the people traffikers or what!?
I'll try and explain it to you simply.....there are two international laws at play here ... both of which have been signed up to by the UK
RNLI or UK Border Force (another name for G4S ... cos border control was privatised by the Tories in 2012) intercept a dinghy in our waters (up to 12 miles off our coast... or in the case of the Channel ... this side of mid way) they are obliged under the United Nations Convention of the 'Law of the Sea' to rescue them to a place of safety. (All Countries recognise this duty)
Under the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 (Written by the UK) an asylum seeker has the right to seek and apply for asylum in the country of their choice. There is no requirement to seek asylum in the 'first safe country'. There is also a requirement for a country through which the asylum seeker is passing to allow safe passage and not to disrupt that passage (best not think Rwanda here)
hope this helps
The French refuse to allow us to dock and put them ashore. Simple.
Do the French have their whole coastline covered by enforcement officials/their navy/their police, its a pretty long coastline:
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour
"Mulberry harbours were temporary portable harbours developed by the United Kingdom during the Second World War to facilitate the rapid offloading of cargo onto beaches during the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944."
hope this helps
Yes, it does, but I say again we signed up to the Northern Ireland agreement, but now we are going back on it, because someone has decided that is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time we had a re-think on our signature on something from 70 years ago, because circumstances have changed. A bit like how the European human rights conventions are being re-thought to be replaced with a UK bill of rights, because some of us are getting fed up of people - criminals - being allowed to stay here because they have a cat or something.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 49,805
Do you believe the U.K. should uphold international laws, or break them when they don’t suit us?Do the French have their whole coastline covered by enforcement officials/their navy/their police, its a pretty long coastline:
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour
"Mulberry harbours were temporary portable harbours developed by the United Kingdom during the Second World War to facilitate the rapid offloading of cargo onto beaches during the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944."
If it’s the latter, how do you think that will be perceived by other countries and what effect do you think that may have when we want to negotiate treaties with those countries?
Well I have said this before, but I will say it again: we should break international laws if we feel they are outdated or that current circumstances mean we should. For example, I would much rather we didn't have 500 possibly economic migrants - possibly asylum seekers come last weekend across the channel and instead we'd have 5000 people in obvious need of a safe haven, from Ukraine instead.Do you believe the U.K. should uphold international laws, or break them when they don’t suit us?
If it’s the latter, how do you think that will be perceived by other countries and what effect do you think that may have when we want to negotiate treaties with those countries?
Furthermore, did Australia not break international law when they implemented off-shoring and pushback methods some years ago? I don't see that Australia has been cast out into the wilderness internationally because of that, or have they and I just don't know about it?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 49,805
Ok. You’re willing to make the U.K. become a tyrannical country with a despotic government to stop 500 people sailing across the channel?Well I have said this before, but I will say it again: we should break international laws if we feel they are outdated or that current circumstances mean we should. For example, I would much rather we didn't have 500 possibly economic migrants - possibly asylum seekers come last weekend across the channel and instead we'd have 5000 people in obvious need of a safe haven, from Ukraine instead.
Furthermore, did Australia not break international law when they implemented off-shoring and pushback methods some years ago? I don't see that Australia has been cast out into the wilderness internationally because of that, or have they and I just don't know about it?
Every single person sailing across the channel is an asylum seeker. If, when processed, they turn out to be an economic migrant, they will be deported. This is how the system works.
Rather than destroying our country’s worldwide reputation to stop these crossings, wouldn’t it be easier to just allow them a safe passage to apply for asylum and deport the ones that don’t qualify?