Terrorists and Organised crime

[Barryd999]

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

[Birdbrain]

Didn't anyone tell those terrorists 'no deal is dead" ???

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

 

More pathetic LLLLB claptrap *-) ..........

 

 

[jumpstart]

Could you just remind me what the LLLL stands for cos I’ve forgotten,assuming that the B is for Birdbrain.

[Barryd999]

I have no idea what he is on about either Jumpstart but its just typical responses from "Hinge and Bracket". Brexit was supposed to make all our lives so much better but so far there is just no evidence to show that will be the case but plenty to show it will actually make our lives much worse. One of the things they banged on about was fortress Britain, taking back control of our borders, safety and controlling who comes into the country. Well it sounds to me like Brexit will actually have the opposite effect on all of that.

[Nicepix]

Bulletguy - 2020-07-29 4:41 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

 

Another typically one sided and speculative report.

 

On the other side of the coin the UK will be able to put in place its own immigration criteria which could mean that less terrorists get through the immigration channels. The UK will not be obliged to take the quota of immigrants registered in the EU and who have refused to follow the EU guidelines and instead try and force entry into their destination country of choice. That could be a major benefit in more ways than one.

 

Also, Boris has speculated that the UK is to review its obligations to the ECHR. If that happens then the repatriation process could be much more speedy and force asylum seekers to challenge the deportation from outside the UK. Again, some benefits could be achieved in preventing terrorism.

 

None of the above could be possible under EU membership.

[Barryd999]

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 10:53 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-07-29 4:41 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

 

Another typically one sided and speculative report.

 

On the other side of the coin the UK will be able to put in place its own immigration criteria which could mean that less terrorists get through the immigration channels. The UK will not be obliged to take the quota of immigrants registered in the EU and who have refused to follow the EU guidelines and instead try and force entry into their destination country of choice. That could be a major benefit in more ways than one.

 

Also, Boris has speculated that the UK is to review its obligations to the ECHR. If that happens then the repatriation process could be much more speedy and force asylum seekers to challenge the deportation from outside the UK. Again, some benefits could be achieved in preventing terrorism.

 

None of the above could be possible under EU membership.

 

Several ex Mi5 and security advisors have spoken out about this and warned of the risks to national security Brexit could bring and especially a no deal Brexit so this is nothing new or speculative. What is speculative is your idea that some new immigration system will stop terrorists better than what we have now with access to the comprehensive EU wide databases we currently have access to.

 

As for being able to get shot of asylum seekers / migrants more easily. The Dublin agreement we currently are part of due to EU membership does allow us to return migrants back to the country they came from (in our case usually France). We will no longer be able to do that. It does seem that recently the French have not been trying too hard to stop illegal immigrants jumping on boats and heading here. I wonder how hard they will try in a no deal Brexit situation when we gridlock their ports and some of their businesses and services suffer as a result.

 

The Brexiteers were desperate to end freedom of movement and to get shot of as many immigrants as possible but its likely to backfire as firstly people are realising just how important immigrant care workers, nurses and agricultural workers are / were and also that its very likely illegal immigration to the UK will increase. Ironically EU migration to the UK has dropped hugely since the Brexit vote but in response none EU immigration to the UK is at its highest level since records began.

 

[Nicepix]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 4:03 PM

 

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 10:53 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-07-29 4:41 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

 

Another typically one sided and speculative report.

 

On the other side of the coin the UK will be able to put in place its own immigration criteria which could mean that less terrorists get through the immigration channels. The UK will not be obliged to take the quota of immigrants registered in the EU and who have refused to follow the EU guidelines and instead try and force entry into their destination country of choice. That could be a major benefit in more ways than one.

 

Also, Boris has speculated that the UK is to review its obligations to the ECHR. If that happens then the repatriation process could be much more speedy and force asylum seekers to challenge the deportation from outside the UK. Again, some benefits could be achieved in preventing terrorism.

 

None of the above could be possible under EU membership.

 

Several ex Mi5 and security advisors have spoken out about this and warned of the risks to national security Brexit could bring and especially a no deal Brexit so this is nothing new or speculative. What is speculative is your idea that some new immigration system will stop terrorists better than what we have now with access to the comprehensive EU wide databases we currently have access to.

 

As for being able to get shot of asylum seekers / migrants more easily. The Dublin agreement we currently are part of due to EU membership does allow us to return migrants back to the country they came from (in our case usually France). We will no longer be able to do that. It does seem that recently the French have not been trying too hard to stop illegal immigrants jumping on boats and heading here. I wonder how hard they will try in a no deal Brexit situation when we gridlock their ports and some of their businesses and services suffer as a result.

 

The Brexiteers were desperate to end freedom of movement and to get shot of as many immigrants as possible but its likely to backfire as firstly people are realising just how important immigrant care workers, nurses and agricultural workers are / were and also that its very likely illegal immigration to the UK will increase. Ironically EU migration to the UK has dropped hugely since the Brexit vote but in response none EU immigration to the UK is at its highest level since records began.

 

Yes, there will be risks associated with Brexit. But as I say, the article does not even try to offer a balance by outlining the stricter immigration criteria the UK can adopt once free of Brussels rules.

 

Yes, in theory the UK can return migrants who come from EU countries and who, after the stated period, become a burden on the host nation. The same applies to all EU countries but it isn't working hence the large number of Romanians camped out in France and living purely on hand outs. One of the reasons that the system doesn't work is that there are too many loopholes that can be challenged by the Yuman Rights lawyers.And you have to prove where the migrants have come from and by what route. Hence the Government's plans to disengage from the ECHR which will simplify and speed up the repatriation process and / or allow imprisonment of migrants who cannot prove their right to reside in the UK.

 

And France has always had a problem with hosting refugees intent on crossing the Channel. It isn't really their problem. But after 31st December the EU regulations on refugees do not apply to the UK.

[Barryd999]

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 3:43 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 4:03 PM

 

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 10:53 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-07-29 4:41 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

 

Another typically one sided and speculative report.

 

On the other side of the coin the UK will be able to put in place its own immigration criteria which could mean that less terrorists get through the immigration channels. The UK will not be obliged to take the quota of immigrants registered in the EU and who have refused to follow the EU guidelines and instead try and force entry into their destination country of choice. That could be a major benefit in more ways than one.

 

Also, Boris has speculated that the UK is to review its obligations to the ECHR. If that happens then the repatriation process could be much more speedy and force asylum seekers to challenge the deportation from outside the UK. Again, some benefits could be achieved in preventing terrorism.

 

None of the above could be possible under EU membership.

 

Several ex Mi5 and security advisors have spoken out about this and warned of the risks to national security Brexit could bring and especially a no deal Brexit so this is nothing new or speculative. What is speculative is your idea that some new immigration system will stop terrorists better than what we have now with access to the comprehensive EU wide databases we currently have access to.

 

As for being able to get shot of asylum seekers / migrants more easily. The Dublin agreement we currently are part of due to EU membership does allow us to return migrants back to the country they came from (in our case usually France). We will no longer be able to do that. It does seem that recently the French have not been trying too hard to stop illegal immigrants jumping on boats and heading here. I wonder how hard they will try in a no deal Brexit situation when we gridlock their ports and some of their businesses and services suffer as a result.

 

The Brexiteers were desperate to end freedom of movement and to get shot of as many immigrants as possible but its likely to backfire as firstly people are realising just how important immigrant care workers, nurses and agricultural workers are / were and also that its very likely illegal immigration to the UK will increase. Ironically EU migration to the UK has dropped hugely since the Brexit vote but in response none EU immigration to the UK is at its highest level since records began.

 

Yes, there will be risks associated with Brexit. But as I say, the article does not even try to offer a balance by outlining the stricter immigration criteria the UK can adopt once free of Brussels rules.

 

Yes, in theory the UK can return migrants who come from EU countries and who, after the stated period, become a burden on the host nation. The same applies to all EU countries but it isn't working hence the large number of Romanians camped out in France and living purely on hand outs. One of the reasons that the system doesn't work is that there are too many loopholes that can be challenged by the Yuman Rights lawyers.And you have to prove where the migrants have come from and by what route. Hence the Government's plans to disengage from the ECHR which will simplify and speed up the repatriation process and / or allow imprisonment of migrants who cannot prove their right to reside in the UK.

 

And France has always had a problem with hosting refugees intent on crossing the Channel. It isn't really their problem. But after 31st December the EU regulations on refugees do not apply to the UK.

 

And after the 31st December you cannot send them back to France so what are you going to do with them?

 

Seems to me the Brexiteers believed all the hype and anti EU rubbish about EU migrants taking our jobs, clogging up our services etc but that myth has long been debunked so the loss of EU migrants is actually a loss to the economy and the loss of the Dublin agreement actually prevents us from returning illegal immigrants to France. Im struggling to see the positives here as regards Brexit.

 

Then you have to consider the chaos that will ensue at our ports, the possible loss of British border control on French soil and perhaps an increase in the black economy for illegal workers in the UK as it throws away all the regulations, workers and human rights (Which oddly you seem to think is a positive thing).

 

The problem you face is Johnson and the other Elite you handed power to dont really give a toss about immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Thats not what Brexit was about for them.

 

For sure the system we had is not perfect, there will always be spongers, scroungers, criminals and the odd terrorist but we have more than enough of them that are British. On average those that make it here either illegally or legally come here to work and make a better life for themselves. All Brexit will do is lower the calibre of immigrant and it wont stop illegal immigrants.

[Nicepix]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 7:26 PM

 

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 3:43 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 4:03 PM

 

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 10:53 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-07-29 4:41 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-29 12:14 PM

 

Will be the winners of a no deal Brexit

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/terrorists-and-organized-crime-will-be-the-winners-of-a-no-deal-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3YY5W73jymctdpwF3ZI8K9bn_6b7dMkR6VoW66sJMzJWjGtDK6dCQpgRg

 

So it looks like we will all be "losers".

But they all knew what they were voting for.................didn't they? ;-)

 

Another typically one sided and speculative report.

 

On the other side of the coin the UK will be able to put in place its own immigration criteria which could mean that less terrorists get through the immigration channels. The UK will not be obliged to take the quota of immigrants registered in the EU and who have refused to follow the EU guidelines and instead try and force entry into their destination country of choice. That could be a major benefit in more ways than one.

 

Also, Boris has speculated that the UK is to review its obligations to the ECHR. If that happens then the repatriation process could be much more speedy and force asylum seekers to challenge the deportation from outside the UK. Again, some benefits could be achieved in preventing terrorism.

 

None of the above could be possible under EU membership.

 

Several ex Mi5 and security advisors have spoken out about this and warned of the risks to national security Brexit could bring and especially a no deal Brexit so this is nothing new or speculative. What is speculative is your idea that some new immigration system will stop terrorists better than what we have now with access to the comprehensive EU wide databases we currently have access to.

 

As for being able to get shot of asylum seekers / migrants more easily. The Dublin agreement we currently are part of due to EU membership does allow us to return migrants back to the country they came from (in our case usually France). We will no longer be able to do that. It does seem that recently the French have not been trying too hard to stop illegal immigrants jumping on boats and heading here. I wonder how hard they will try in a no deal Brexit situation when we gridlock their ports and some of their businesses and services suffer as a result.

 

The Brexiteers were desperate to end freedom of movement and to get shot of as many immigrants as possible but its likely to backfire as firstly people are realising just how important immigrant care workers, nurses and agricultural workers are / were and also that its very likely illegal immigration to the UK will increase. Ironically EU migration to the UK has dropped hugely since the Brexit vote but in response none EU immigration to the UK is at its highest level since records began.

 

Yes, there will be risks associated with Brexit. But as I say, the article does not even try to offer a balance by outlining the stricter immigration criteria the UK can adopt once free of Brussels rules.

 

Yes, in theory the UK can return migrants who come from EU countries and who, after the stated period, become a burden on the host nation. The same applies to all EU countries but it isn't working hence the large number of Romanians camped out in France and living purely on hand outs. One of the reasons that the system doesn't work is that there are too many loopholes that can be challenged by the Yuman Rights lawyers.And you have to prove where the migrants have come from and by what route. Hence the Government's plans to disengage from the ECHR which will simplify and speed up the repatriation process and / or allow imprisonment of migrants who cannot prove their right to reside in the UK.

 

And France has always had a problem with hosting refugees intent on crossing the Channel. It isn't really their problem. But after 31st December the EU regulations on refugees do not apply to the UK.

 

And after the 31st December you cannot send them back to France so what are you going to do with them?

 

Seems to me the Brexiteers believed all the hype and anti EU rubbish about EU migrants taking our jobs, clogging up our services etc but that myth has long been debunked so the loss of EU migrants is actually a loss to the economy and the loss of the Dublin agreement actually prevents us from returning illegal immigrants to France. Im struggling to see the positives here as regards Brexit.

 

Then you have to consider the chaos that will ensue at our ports, the possible loss of British border control on French soil and perhaps an increase in the black economy for illegal workers in the UK as it throws away all the regulations, workers and human rights (Which oddly you seem to think is a positive thing).

 

The problem you face is Johnson and the other Elite you handed power to dont really give a toss about immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Thats not what Brexit was about for them.

 

For sure the system we had is not perfect, there will always be spongers, scroungers, criminals and the odd terrorist but we have more than enough of them that are British. On average those that make it here either illegally or legally come here to work and make a better life for themselves. All Brexit will do is lower the calibre of immigrant and it wont stop illegal immigrants.

 

The illegal immigration that we see today is the result of the Libour Government of Bliar and Brown. Meddlesome admitted that they had deliberately created the surge of illegal immigrants.

 

What leaving the EU means, and you don't seem to be able to accept this; EU rules and quotas will no longer be applicable to the UK. So even if the same number of illegal immigrants make it to UK shores, the UK can significantly reduce the number of for want of a better word; legal, immigrants. The bck door might still be open. Let's face it illegal immigration is very difficult to control, but the UK will no longer have to accept the numbers the EU impose on them. And, another thing that you cannot grasp is that if the UK opt out of the ECHR then it can return far more illegal immigrants and imprison others to deter those yet to arrive.

[jumpstart]

Barry ,my understanding is that those from the Eu who claim asylum can be returned as they have to claim it in the first safe country .Which isn’t us. Those who do not claim asylum can be returned anyway. Which is why when we are no longer part of Brussels Great Plan we do not have to accept any Eu quotas of the millions who will be coming from Africa due to famine,war,lack of water.

[Barryd999]

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour. The Tories have been in power for over a decade. The Blair government made the mistake of accepting eastern European migrants legally when they didn’t have to but they were not illegals.

 

As for quotas. They don’t work, countries do what they like anyway. The UK is way down the list for the number of Asylum seekers / refugees it takes in. Most settle in mainland Europe. You still have not grasped that out of the Dublin agreement where are you going to send illegal immigrants with no identification? Makes no odds if you are in the ECHR or not. What are you going to do, throw them off the white cliffs of Dover? France wont have to accept them back after the 31 December.

 

Its actually a myth that refuges “legally” have to claim asylum in the first country they come to but what you two above do not seem to grasp is you are actually throwing away more options to return asylum seekers by leaving the EU not by staying in it.

 

The truth is Brexit as a way of reducing immigration is totally flawed. Immigration will not change. Likely it will go up but you will just replace white European immigrants with none EU brown ones. Its already happened. Dont bother me but I suspect it will bother Brexiteers. By your own admission illegal immigration is always hard to stop, its just going to get harder after 31 Dec.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 9:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour.

 

WRONG *-) ........

 

Blair opened our borders Dimwit *-) .......

[John52]

pelmetman - 2020-07-30 9:38 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 9:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour.

 

WRONG *-) ........

 

Blair opened our borders Dimwit *-) .......

 

So you read the first sentence.

Very Good

Now try and maintain concentration long enough to read the second one

...many times till it sinks in :-D

[John52]

If the much-vaunted radicalism of Boris Johnson’s aide Dominic Cummings is to mean anything, he should turn from easy targets, such as civil servants and local democracy, and tackle something hard, like prisons.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/31/british-prisons-are-inhumane-and-do-not-prevent-most-of-them-should-go

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2020-07-31 12:04 AM

 

pelmetman - 2020-07-30 9:38 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 9:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour.

 

WRONG *-) ........

 

Blair opened our borders Dimwit *-) .......

 

So you read the first sentence.

Very Good

Now try and maintain concentration long enough to read the second one

...many times till it sinks in :-D

 

So you deny that Blair turned the UK into a magnet for migrants? 8-) ..........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2020-07-31 8:53 AM

 

If the much-vaunted radicalism of Boris Johnson’s aide Dominic Cummings is to mean anything, he should turn from easy targets, such as civil servants and local democracy, and tackle something hard, like prisons.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/31/british-prisons-are-inhumane-and-do-not-prevent-most-of-them-should-go

 

Our prisons cant be inhumane seeing as so many of our career criminals aren't put off risking a return to a HMP holiday camp *-) ............

 

 

[Nicepix]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 10:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour. The Tories have been in power for over a decade. The Blair government made the mistake of accepting eastern European migrants legally when they didn’t have to but they were not illegals.

 

As for quotas. They don’t work, countries do what they like anyway. The UK is way down the list for the number of Asylum seekers / refugees it takes in. Most settle in mainland Europe. You still have not grasped that out of the Dublin agreement where are you going to send illegal immigrants with no identification? Makes no odds if you are in the ECHR or not. What are you going to do, throw them off the white cliffs of Dover? France wont have to accept them back after the 31 December.

Its actually a myth that refuges “legally” have to claim asylum in the first country they come to but what you two above do not seem to grasp is you are actually throwing away more options to return asylum seekers by leaving the EU not by staying in it.

 

The truth is Brexit as a way of reducing immigration is totally flawed. Immigration will not change. Likely it will go up but you will just replace white European immigrants with none EU brown ones. Its already happened. Dont bother me but I suspect it will bother Brexiteers. By your own admission illegal immigration is always hard to stop, its just going to get harder after 31 Dec.

 

The immigrants that Meddlesome admitted recruiting were not from Eastern Europe but from countries including Afghanistan. There were lorry loads of illegal immigrants coming over. I should know I had to deal with them almost every day. And at police stations like West Bar in Sheffield they were hammering on the doors all night trying to get a lift to Croydon so they could register within the 24 hour period that the Libour Government had stipulated they had to do to apply for asylum. They had burnt their passports in the lorry trailers and some had stripped off their finger prints using super glue.

 

 

Can you just accept for once that the Dublin agreement will not apply to the UK after 31st December? The UK is leaving the EU. It has been in all the papers. Even the Grauniad!

 

No European country can fully expect to protect its borders 100%. But the EU laws will not apply so the UK will be able to make laws independently to best suit their situation. If they cannot be repatriated then they could be imprisoned in refugee camps such as Australia have done. Once word gets around that the illegal immigrants do not get absorbed into society as they have been they will go elsewhere.

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2020-07-31 8:59 AM

 

John52 - 2020-07-31 12:04 AM

 

pelmetman - 2020-07-30 9:38 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 9:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour.

 

WRONG *-) ........

 

Blair opened our borders Dimwit *-) .......

 

So you read the first sentence.

Very Good

Now try and maintain concentration long enough to read the second one

...many times till it sinks in :-D

 

So you deny that Blair turned the UK into a magnet for migrants? 8-) ..........

 

 

You didn't get as far as the second sentence then.

Would it help if I post it here;

 

The Tories have been in power for over a decade.

[Brian Kirby]

Nicepix - 2020-07-30 7:36 PM.............................

1 The illegal immigration that we see today is the result of the Labour Government of Bliar and Brown. Meddlesome admitted that they had deliberately created the surge of illegal immigrants.

 

2 ..............................….So even if the same number of illegal immigrants make it to UK shores, the UK can significantly reduce the number of for want of a better word; legal, immigrants. The bck door might still be open. Let's face it illegal immigration is very difficult to control,....

 

3 ….but the UK will no longer have to accept the numbers the EU impose on them.

 

4 .............. if the UK opt out of the ECHR then it can return far more illegal immigrants and imprison others to deter those yet to arrive.

1 Can you please say where/when this admission was made? It's just that I've never seen or heard that claim, or the claim of admission, made anywhere else.

 

All I've heard is that Blair decided against embargoing migration from the new ex Soviet bloc members of the EU who joined in May 2004. As all other existing members at that time did impose embargos for various periods of time, as permitted within the EU directives, this left the UK as the only point of entry, which had the unforeseen effect of bringing a far higher than forecast number of migrants from those countries to UK. Having said that, however, all of those migrants were perfectly legal.

 

Also, I don't understand the concept of a British government deliberately bringing in illegal migrants. If they were deliberately brought in, how could they also be illegal?

 

2 Are you suggesting that we should, therefore, admit the illegals (who by definition we do not select), and reduce those we would otherwise legally admit (who by definition we have selected) to compensate? How would that be advantageous to the UK? Also, if the prize for getting in illegally is to be granted settled status or whatever, how would that serve to reduce the "draw" of the UK for other illegals already in the EU?

 

3 Numbers of which: EU nationals, migrants from outside the EU, or illegal migrants? Also, where/how does the EU impose particular numbers of any of these categories on UK?

 

4 Or maybe not. From the online news mag Hellas, Feb 19 2020:

 

"In a landmark decision that will have potentially seismic implications for immigration policy in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Spain acted lawfully when it summarily deported two migrants who illegally tried to enter Spanish territory.

 

The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.

 

The ruling, which effectively authorizes European governments summarily to deport illegal migrants immediately at the border, transfers some decision-making powers on immigration back to European nation states. The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory."

 

[Barryd999]

Nicepix - 2020-07-31 11:02 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 10:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour. The Tories have been in power for over a decade. The Blair government made the mistake of accepting eastern European migrants legally when they didn’t have to but they were not illegals.

 

As for quotas. They don’t work, countries do what they like anyway. The UK is way down the list for the number of Asylum seekers / refugees it takes in. Most settle in mainland Europe. You still have not grasped that out of the Dublin agreement where are you going to send illegal immigrants with no identification? Makes no odds if you are in the ECHR or not. What are you going to do, throw them off the white cliffs of Dover? France wont have to accept them back after the 31 December.

Its actually a myth that refuges “legally” have to claim asylum in the first country they come to but what you two above do not seem to grasp is you are actually throwing away more options to return asylum seekers by leaving the EU not by staying in it.

 

The truth is Brexit as a way of reducing immigration is totally flawed. Immigration will not change. Likely it will go up but you will just replace white European immigrants with none EU brown ones. Its already happened. Dont bother me but I suspect it will bother Brexiteers. By your own admission illegal immigration is always hard to stop, its just going to get harder after 31 Dec.

 

The immigrants that Meddlesome admitted recruiting were not from Eastern Europe but from countries including Afghanistan. There were lorry loads of illegal immigrants coming over. I should know I had to deal with them almost every day. And at police stations like West Bar in Sheffield they were hammering on the doors all night trying to get a lift to Croydon so they could register within the 24 hour period that the Libour Government had stipulated they had to do to apply for asylum. They had burnt their passports in the lorry trailers and some had stripped off their finger prints using super glue.

 

 

Can you just accept for once that the Dublin agreement will not apply to the UK after 31st December? The UK is leaving the EU. It has been in all the papers. Even the Grauniad!

 

No European country can fully expect to protect its borders 100%. But the EU laws will not apply so the UK will be able to make laws independently to best suit their situation. If they cannot be repatriated then they could be imprisoned in refugee camps such as Australia have done. Once word gets around that the illegal immigrants do not get absorbed into society as they have been they will go elsewhere.

 

Its not me that cant accept that it ends, its you! I keep telling you that its the Dublin agreement that actually allows us to return illegal migrants back to France. Yes it ends on the 31 December which means we can no longer return them to France. I see though your solution is to set up what sounds like some kind of concentration camp and to end our membership of the ECHR. Blimey! You are not from North Korea are you?

 

I see Brian has pretty much covered everything else.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-07-31 4:58 PM

 

Nicepix - 2020-07-31 11:02 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-07-30 10:17 PM

 

The illegal immigration we see today is nothing to do with Labour. The Tories have been in power for over a decade. The Blair government made the mistake of accepting eastern European migrants legally when they didn’t have to but they were not illegals.

 

As for quotas. They don’t work, countries do what they like anyway. The UK is way down the list for the number of Asylum seekers / refugees it takes in. Most settle in mainland Europe. You still have not grasped that out of the Dublin agreement where are you going to send illegal immigrants with no identification? Makes no odds if you are in the ECHR or not. What are you going to do, throw them off the white cliffs of Dover? France wont have to accept them back after the 31 December.

Its actually a myth that refuges “legally” have to claim asylum in the first country they come to but what you two above do not seem to grasp is you are actually throwing away more options to return asylum seekers by leaving the EU not by staying in it.

 

The truth is Brexit as a way of reducing immigration is totally flawed. Immigration will not change. Likely it will go up but you will just replace white European immigrants with none EU brown ones. Its already happened. Dont bother me but I suspect it will bother Brexiteers. By your own admission illegal immigration is always hard to stop, its just going to get harder after 31 Dec.

 

The immigrants that Meddlesome admitted recruiting were not from Eastern Europe but from countries including Afghanistan. There were lorry loads of illegal immigrants coming over. I should know I had to deal with them almost every day. And at police stations like West Bar in Sheffield they were hammering on the doors all night trying to get a lift to Croydon so they could register within the 24 hour period that the Libour Government had stipulated they had to do to apply for asylum. They had burnt their passports in the lorry trailers and some had stripped off their finger prints using super glue.

 

 

Can you just accept for once that the Dublin agreement will not apply to the UK after 31st December? The UK is leaving the EU. It has been in all the papers. Even the Grauniad!

 

No European country can fully expect to protect its borders 100%. But the EU laws will not apply so the UK will be able to make laws independently to best suit their situation. If they cannot be repatriated then they could be imprisoned in refugee camps such as Australia have done. Once word gets around that the illegal immigrants do not get absorbed into society as they have been they will go elsewhere.

 

Its not me that cant accept that it ends, its you! I keep telling you that its the Dublin agreement that actually allows us to return illegal migrants back to France. Yes it ends on the 31 December which means we can no longer return them to France. I see though your solution is to set up what sounds like some kind of concentration camp and to end our membership of the ECHR. Blimey! You are not from North Korea are you?

 

I see Brian has pretty much covered everything else.

 

Returning folk to France is a waste of time as they'll only be back on the next coastguard ferry *-) ..........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2020-08-01 11:00 AM

Returning folk to France is a waste of time as they'll only be back on the next coastguard ferry *-) ..........

Not necessarily. From the online news mag Hellas, Feb 19 2020:

"In a landmark decision that will have potentially seismic implications for immigration policy in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Spain acted lawfully when it summarily deported two migrants who illegally tried to enter Spanish territory.

 

The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.

 

The ruling, which effectively authorizes European governments summarily to deport illegal migrants immediately at the border, transfers some decision-making powers on immigration back to European nation states. The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory."

 

It seems they can be returned to the country from which they came. In terms of entering the UK, for most, that will be France. As many of them seem to destroy all their identification documents en-route, it will be difficult and time consuming to track their actual origins but, if they left from France, back to France they can go. Then the French can begin doing what they should have done when the migrants arrived, and push them back up the pipeline they came down, and eventually to north Africa or Turkey.

 

The extent to which that can be applied retrospectively has yet to be tested. It may be that if countries have not sought immediate deportation they are held to have accepted them, so must continue to do so, or that the countries can argue they could not have done so as the ECHR had not at that time ruled. I guess that depends on whether the Spanish were the only state to be challenged, or were merely the country whose case was tried to establish a principle.

 

All well and good, but ultimately, it still means countries will have to determine whether those who arrive with papers are seeking refugee status or claiming asylum.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-01 5:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2020-08-01 11:00 AM

Returning folk to France is a waste of time as they'll only be back on the next coastguard ferry *-) ..........

Not necessarily. From the online news mag Hellas, Feb 19 2020:

"In a landmark decision that will have potentially seismic implications for immigration policy in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Spain acted lawfully when it summarily deported two migrants who illegally tried to enter Spanish territory.

 

The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.

 

The ruling, which effectively authorizes European governments summarily to deport illegal migrants immediately at the border, transfers some decision-making powers on immigration back to European nation states. The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory."

 

It seems they can be returned to the country from which they came. In terms of entering the UK, for most, that will be France. As many of them seem to destroy all their identification documents en-route, it will be difficult and time consuming to track their actual origins but, if they left from France, back to France they can go. Then the French can begin doing what they should have done when the migrants arrived, and push them back up the pipeline they came down, and eventually to north Africa or Turkey.

 

The extent to which that can be applied retrospectively has yet to be tested. It may be that if countries have not sought immediate deportation they are held to have accepted them, so must continue to do so, or that the countries can argue they could not have done so as the ECHR had not at that time ruled. I guess that depends on whether the Spanish were the only state to be challenged, or were merely the country whose case was tried to establish a principle.

 

All well and good, but ultimately, it still means countries will have to determine whether those who arrive with papers are seeking refugee status or claiming asylum.

 

Well well......The EU LLLLB have finally noticed they were wrong ;-) .........

 

Its a bit late for us Brexiteers >:-) ..........