Barryd999 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 The agreement doesn’t really work anyway . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 21, 2020 Author Share Posted August 21, 2020 jumpstart - 2020-08-21 12:05 PM The agreement doesn’t really work anyway . It works if you want to send unwanted migrants back to mainland Europe. Of course it probably doesn't work if you have a bunch of Morons in government who couldn't run a bath properly never mind a country. As for taking back control of our borders. They cant do that without the help of the French and the EU! (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 It doesn’t work for other Eu countries either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 21, 2020 Author Share Posted August 21, 2020 jumpstart - 2020-08-21 12:38 PM It doesn’t work for other Eu countries either. Odd then that the government are so desperate to keep the agreement that allows us to send migrants back to France or the eu country they entered from. If I was a migrant after the 31 December I would definitely consider heading to the uk. All they have to do is lose their ID or passport. Where are we going to send them to? Can't return them to Europe and if there is no proof of where they come from we can't send them elsewhere either. I think Nigel Farage should house them seeing as it's his Brexit that's going to make the problem worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-21 11:04 AM But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! As has been evident to anyone without a LLLLB mindset ;-) ...... The Dublin agreement has been as useful as a failed wank *-) ........ Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-21 11:04 AM But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! As has been evident to anyone without a LLLLB mindset ;-) ...... The Dublin agreement has been as useful as a failed wank *-) ........ Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with you Dave (apart from the LLLLB mindset comment, the import of which escapes me). Your second point begs the question why the Dublin agreement has proved unsatisfactory. Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?. You've hit the nail on the head in the third point you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-21 6:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-21 11:04 AM But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! As has been evident to anyone without a LLLLB mindset ;-) ...... The Dublin agreement has been as useful as a failed wank *-) ........ Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with you Dave (apart from the LLLLB mindset comment, the import of which escapes me). Your second point begs the question why the Dublin agreement has proved unsatisfactory. Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?. You've hit the nail on the head in the third point you make. "Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?" Or could it be we have a surfeit of lawyers who feed off those so called victims :-| ....... Just sayin....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-21 6:20 PM Violet1956 - 2020-08-21 6:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-21 11:04 AM But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! As has been evident to anyone without a LLLLB mindset ;-) ...... The Dublin agreement has been as useful as a failed wank *-) ........ Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with you Dave (apart from the LLLLB mindset comment, the import of which escapes me). Your second point begs the question why the Dublin agreement has proved unsatisfactory. Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?. You've hit the nail on the head in the third point you make. "Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?" Or could it be we have a surfeit of lawyers who feed off those so called victims :-| ....... Just sayin....... Good question. I’m not sure either of us can do anything but speculate. However, this link to the “Torygraph” gives us a clue as to when the rot set in. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/border-force-funding-cut-by-quarter-per-person-arriving-to-uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-21 6:46 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 6:20 PM Violet1956 - 2020-08-21 6:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-21 11:04 AM But I told you so. Brexiteers saw (well those of them that had heard of it) the Dublin agreement as some kind of funny foreigner scheme to flood the UK with Asylum seekers but as usual they didn't study the detail. Now the UK government is pleading with the EU to help them take control of our borders (you couldnt make it up) and could you please take back all these migrants when we finally leave the EU proper in December. The Dublin agreement of course allows us to return migrants / rejected asylum seekers to the EU country they came from. As none EU members we will no longer be able to do that. The UK government now wishes to cherry pick a bit of that agreement and the EU has said, get stuffed! (lol) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/20/eu-rejects-british-plan-for-post-brexit-return-of-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Coming soon to a Brexit on sea resort near you!! LOL! As has been evident to anyone without a LLLLB mindset ;-) ...... The Dublin agreement has been as useful as a failed wank *-) ........ Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with you Dave (apart from the LLLLB mindset comment, the import of which escapes me). Your second point begs the question why the Dublin agreement has proved unsatisfactory. Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?. You've hit the nail on the head in the third point you make. "Could it be that we have insufficient staff and resources to pursue what we are entitled to do?" Or could it be we have a surfeit of lawyers who feed off those so called victims :-| ....... Just sayin....... Good question. I’m not sure either of us can do anything but speculate. However, this link to the “Torygraph” gives us a clue as to when the rot set in. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/border-force-funding-cut-by-quarter-per-person-arriving-to-uk/ The rot was set in by Labour's Blair decades before that *-) ......... But I'm guessing you knew that? ;-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM...........................Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... But shipping them back next door under the Dublin regulations is far easer than trying to ship them back to their countries of origin under international law. No country has jurisdiction outside it's own borders saving those negotiated with other countries or competent international institutions. We have fewer rights under international law than we have under the Dublin regulations. It is a Brexiter own goal. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 22, 2020 Author Share Posted August 22, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 8:45 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM...........................Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... But shipping them back next door under the Dublin regulations is far easer than trying to ship them back to their countries of origin under international law. No country has jurisdiction outside it's own borders saving those negotiated with other countries or competent international institutions. We have fewer rights under international law than we have under the Dublin regulations. It is a Brexiter own goal. Simples. LOL! I seem to remember Dave and Antony insisting many times that following Brexit they would simply be able to ship migrants back to France. Now it seems the opposite is true. Ive said all along that cooperation and working together with the rest of Europe is the only way to try and address the migrant issue but they wouldnt have any of that. Brexit was the one stop shop answer and route to some imaginary Fortress Britain. The reality as you say is we will have fewer rights outside the EU than in and it would appear to me that the French are not trying too hard to stop the flow. Wonder what they will be like once the chaos of a no deal Brexit starts to kick in at their ports in January. An own goal for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Going through Brexit doesn’t mean we can’t have a deal with the Eu on immigrants. The Eu have various deals with countries outside the Eu to stem migration. They are not doing too well on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-22 9:30 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 8:45 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM...........................Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... But shipping them back next door under the Dublin regulations is far easer than trying to ship them back to their countries of origin under international law. No country has jurisdiction outside it's own borders saving those negotiated with other countries or competent international institutions. We have fewer rights under international law than we have under the Dublin regulations. It is a Brexiter own goal. Simples. LOL! I seem to remember Dave and Antony insisting many times that following Brexit they would simply be able to ship migrants back to France. Now it seems the opposite is true. Ive said all along that cooperation and working together with the rest of Europe is the only way to try and address the migrant issue but they wouldnt have any of that. Brexit was the one stop shop answer and route to some imaginary Fortress Britain. The reality as you say is we will have fewer rights outside the EU than in and it would appear to me that the French are not trying too hard to stop the flow. Wonder what they will be like once the chaos of a no deal Brexit starts to kick in at their ports in January. An own goal for sure. What they all seemed to forget, or not to understand, is that before a migrant can be shipped anywhere by the UK government, the migrant has first to enter the UK. Once in the UK, the migrant is entitled to claim refugee status or asylum. Under international law, those claims then have to be investigated, and the migrant afforded legal representation in making and defending their claim. As government has cut back its Government Legal Service it lacks the capacity to process the growing number of claims, so the process has become flawed and delayed. So,rather than deal with the world as it is (which is largely as they have made it), they now want to prevent migrants from leaving France in order to prevent them from entering the UK. This alone arguably contravenes international law. Then, they have been surprised to discover that migrants departing France fall under French, not UK, jurisdiction. But migrants who have bought (or had bought for them) inflatables with outboard motors have broken no laws. Taking their inflatable to the sea breaks no laws. Boarding their inflatable and pushing off breaks no law. The only pretext on which they can be prevented is that they are endangering their own lives. But, if a sentient adult decides knowingly to take a foolhardy risk, with the intention of surviving, they are free to do so - providing that in the process they do not endanger the safety of others. What the UK government could do as an interim measure, instead of making grandstanding and ultimately foolish demands they should know cannot be met by the French, is to seek the agreement of the French to send UK immigration officials to France to interview the migrants on French soil, and then to provide accommodation for them in France while their applications are processed. Those who pass can then be transported safely to the UK, and those rejected handed to the French, or returned whence they came insofar as that could legally be done. The end result would ultimately be the same, but the dangerous Channel crossings in small boats would be eliminated. Once we fall outside the Dublin regulations, our only legal route for those whose claims we have investigated and rejected, is to repatriate them, and to be able to do that, we first have to have admitted them (because we are not otherwise legally competent to act). If we seek to intercept them in mid Channel, we should have to do so while they are in international, or UK national, waters, as we have to actual jurisdiction while they are in French national waters. Trying to intercept or return an overloaded inflatable in mid Channel would be highly likely to endanger the lives of those on board, a number of whom must be considered unable to swim, and so would again transgress international law. A remaining alternative might be to simply tour the camps with free, open, air tickets to any country of their choosing outside the EU or UK, and additionally stuff their mouths with gold as an inducement to accept. Ultimately, that might be cheaper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 11:14 AM A remaining alternative might be to simply tour the camps with free, open, air tickets to any country of their choosing outside the EU or UK, and additionally stuff their mouths with gold as an inducement to accept. Ultimately, that might be cheaper! But that would just encourage more people to claim - a fraudsters charter like everything else BoJo has come up with :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 John52 - 2020-08-22 12:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 11:14 AM A remaining alternative might be to simply tour the camps with free, open, air tickets to any country of their choosing outside the EU or UK, and additionally stuff their mouths with gold as an inducement to accept. Ultimately, that might be cheaper! But that would just encourage more people to claim - a fraudsters charter like everything else BoJo has come up with :-S Possibly, but the Brexiter's game is to send them elsewhere, not to worry whether they are morally virtuous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Brian,the EU already pays various African countries to prevent their citizens leaving to float over to the Eu. So that doesn’t seem to be against International law. There is no reason for us not to have other agreements....other than the fact that the Eu are reluctant to do any agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 jumpstart - 2020-08-22 2:51 PM Brian,the EU already pays various African countries to prevent their citizens leaving to float over to the Eu. So that doesn’t seem to be against International law. There is no reason for us not to have other agreements....other than the fact that the Eu are reluctant to do any agreement. Yes, but that is intended to support the refugees in camps nearer their home countries, which is not the same thing as trying to prevent them entering the country in which they want to apply for asylum. The latter action has the effect of denying them their right to make their case for asylum. More detail in my post of 7 August 2020 3:32 PM on the "Migrants" string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 According to the UN there were 79.5 million displaced people and 26 million refugees around the world at the end of 2019. To have a scheme that resettles all of these people in the most stable and safe countries is not feasible under the strict terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is hopelessly outdated. It is about time UNHCR came up with a modern alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-22 6:44 PM According to the UN there were 79.5 million displaced people and 26 million refugees around the world at the end of 2019. To have a scheme that resettles all of these people in the most stable and safe countries is not feasible under the strict terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is hopelessly outdated. It is about time UNHCR came up with a modern alternative. Absolutely agree. And it’s only going to get worse. More Southern Hemisphere countries will experience less and less water and so will migrate north,never mind wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-22 6:44 PM According to the UN there were 79.5 million displaced people and 26 million refugees around the world at the end of 2019. To have a scheme that resettles all of these people in the most stable and safe countries is not feasible under the strict terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is hopelessly outdated. It is about time UNHCR came up with a modern alternative. Quite. But it is easy to see the problem with that. People from the countries from which most of those displaced persons and refugees come, just want the opportunity for what we regard as a normal life. That is not open to them in their home countries, so they leave to get to countries that appear to have more to offer. Unless those other, more prosperous, countries can use them as cheap labour, all they see is an increasing burden on their own national resources to accommodate, shelter, and care for them. OTOH, if they are employable as cheap labour, there is a foreseeable political backlash from those who see their own jobs, or standard of living, under threat. So the incentive to take them is low. The solution is a transfer of resource from the wealthier countries to those less well off. The question then is how that can be implemented without loss to the wealthier countries and their nationals. Part of our present political difficulties in the UK seems to me to stem from offshoring our productive capabilities since the 1960s, which has resulted in devalued jobs in UK for many which, in turn, seems to have resulted in many feeling under-rewarded and politically excluded. Hence, IMO, the rejection of the concept of an educated elite being best equipped to decide the course of events - in short populism. It is the by-product of world trade on non-tariff terms, where those who bear the costs of living in highly serviced countries find themselves in direct competition for jobs with others who frequently live in countries with lower educational, housing, healthcare, physical infrastructure and democratic provision, and are merely admonished to work smarter, not harder. Similar can be seen in other more highly developed countries. Some amass enormous wealth from importing cheap overseas goods, often marketed under familiar brand names, while native populations see only diminishing employment prospects and living standards. China sits at the pinnacle of the offshoring move, which, being a command economy with no recognised traded currency, is able to fix its pricing to ensure that it buys little and sells much. And yet, countries, Including the UK, continue to allow their goods free access to our markets to the disadvantage, overall, of our own productive capacity and GDP. To quote Enoch Powell, we must be mad! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-22 6:44 PM According to the UN there were 79.5 million displaced people and 26 million refugees around the world at the end of 2019. To have a scheme that resettles all of these people in the most stable and safe countries is not feasible under the strict terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is hopelessly outdated. It is about time UNHCR came up with a modern alternative. There's been a famine raging in Yemen for the past four years as a result of civil war but that barely gets a mention. Genocide committed against the Rohingya same length of time. The war in Syria has been going even longer. Those fortunate to escape alive become refugees. Re. the UNHCR, i think Brian had a point in his post about ending the stupidity of having to be in the country you seek asylum when it could be done without risk to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Violet1956 - 2020-08-22 6:44 PM According to the UN there were 79.5 million displaced people and 26 million refugees around the world at the end of 2019. To have a scheme that resettles all of these people in the most stable and safe countries is not feasible under the strict terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is hopelessly outdated. It is about time UNHCR came up with a modern alternative. So the problem is how to move around 80 or 90 million people to the " most stable and safe countries " without making those countries as unstable and unsafe as the ones they left - which would achieve nothing. Apart from climate change difficulties, the answers lie in the politics of the places they are leaving. It takes centuries to create safe and stable countries - and my impression is that a lot of places aren't trying very hard. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 12:54 PM John52 - 2020-08-22 12:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 11:14 AM A remaining alternative might be to simply tour the camps with free, open, air tickets to any country of their choosing outside the EU or UK, and additionally stuff their mouths with gold as an inducement to accept. Ultimately, that might be cheaper! But that would just encourage more people to claim - a fraudsters charter like everything else BoJo has come up with :-S Possibly, but the Brexiter's game is to send them elsewhere, not to worry whether they are morally virtuous! It's curious that those who claim the moral high ground on here don't seem to have a migrant problem *-) .......... I'm guessing they'd soon change their minds if migrants were dumped in their Shangri-Las >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-22 8:45 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-21 3:53 PM...........................Shipping them back next door is hardly solving the problem is it? >:-) .......... But shipping them back next door under the Dublin regulations is far easer than trying to ship them back to their countries of origin under international law. No country has jurisdiction outside it's own borders saving those negotiated with other countries or competent international institutions. We have fewer rights under international law than we have under the Dublin regulations. It is a Brexiter own goal. Simples. Shipping them back next door is pointless *-) .......... We may as well just ship them to West Sussex ;-) ......... I reckon you'd soon change your tune then >:-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.