Dave225 Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 pelmetman - 2016-06-26 1:53 PM Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 1:18 PM Rayjsj - 2016-06-26 11:33 AM Under the present situation i suggest we revoke our inclusion in the act. NO jungle or equivalent in Kent. If travellers or stowaways dont have the relevent visas or work permits. Ship them right back to where they came from. And fine the shipping line that allowed them to board. Job done. Nothing wrong with the Act I mentioned. If an illegal entrant claims asylum in the UK then the Act says it goes against them. The UK can't legislate to the effect that a faiure to claim in a safe country means that the asylum seeker can just be sent back to their country of origin without considering their asylum claim. We can only do that if we withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we manage to persuade the current countries of the UN who have ratified it that it should be amended to state that. Don't shoot me though. I am only the messenger! I can quite understand why people are so fed up with the situation. There are many who feel that the Refugee Convention is past its sell -by date and does not reflect the current realities of the modern world or the current needs of those facing persecution or other forms of serious harm in their countries of origin. The scale of abuse of the system is naturally a concern as is the criminality and callousness of people traffickers. Veronica If they do move the border to the UK...... the irony will be that there won't be any camp, they'll be up the M20 like rats up a drainpipe to London ;-) .............. Looks like those folk who live in London, will still get the open door migration they wanted :D ....... There are possibly some positives to look at. If the border is moved back to the UK side, and as far as I know this situation only applies to the Tunnel and maybe Calais.Dunkirque, then there will have to be restrictions on lorries travelling across, especially non UK registered ones, as it appears they are often the 'carriers' of illegals. It will slow things up but worth it to have total control. If this were then to deter foreign registered lorries from clogging up our roads and stealing business by undercutting UK registered truckers, then why not? We need to adopt the Aussie system, not the quota idea but to place all those claiming asylum in a 'safe' place. My suggestion id part of the Outer Hebrides. No threat to life there and of course the weather and the isolation may encourage many to ask to go elsewhere for asylum after a few months. The locals may object but as there are parts where no one really lives, it should be possible. The asylum seekers can then be vetted properly to ascertain who is genuine, or not. That is the Aussie way. Of course it will not stop those diappearing into the black hole of the UK, but again I would suggest we introduce identity cards for ourselves. Most countiries have one and it is virtually the same as having a driving licence, but it would allow checks to be made more easily on who is legally here. Yes, forgeries may arise, but these will be fewer than the current non exisitent system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 pelmetman - 2016-06-26 1:53 PM Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 1:18 PM Rayjsj - 2016-06-26 11:33 AM Under the present situation i suggest we revoke our inclusion in the act. NO jungle or equivalent in Kent. If travellers or stowaways dont have the relevent visas or work permits. Ship them right back to where they came from. And fine the shipping line that allowed them to board. Job done. Nothing wrong with the Act I mentioned. If an illegal entrant claims asylum in the UK then the Act says it goes against them. The UK can't legislate to the effect that a faiure to claim in a safe country means that the asylum seeker can just be sent back to their country of origin without considering their asylum claim. We can only do that if we withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we manage to persuade the current countries of the UN who have ratified it that it should be amended to state that. Don't shoot me though. I am only the messenger! I can quite understand why people are so fed up with the situation. There are many who feel that the Refugee Convention is past its sell -by date and does not reflect the current realities of the modern world or the current needs of those facing persecution or other forms of serious harm in their countries of origin. The scale of abuse of the system is naturally a concern as is the criminality and callousness of people traffickers. Veronica If they do move the border to the UK...... the irony will be that there won't be any camp, they'll be up the M20 like rats up a drainpipe to London ;-) .............. Looks like those folk who live in London, will still get the open door migration they wanted :D ....... Good afternoon Dave. I see no irony as as I cannot recall anyone in the Remain camp that they said supported illegal migration which is what the Le Touquet agreement was rather successful in stemming, at least from Northern Europe. Veronica *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 3:58 PM pelmetman - 2016-06-26 1:53 PM Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 1:18 PM Rayjsj - 2016-06-26 11:33 AM Under the present situation i suggest we revoke our inclusion in the act. NO jungle or equivalent in Kent. If travellers or stowaways dont have the relevent visas or work permits. Ship them right back to where they came from. And fine the shipping line that allowed them to board. Job done. Nothing wrong with the Act I mentioned. If an illegal entrant claims asylum in the UK then the Act says it goes against them. The UK can't legislate to the effect that a faiure to claim in a safe country means that the asylum seeker can just be sent back to their country of origin without considering their asylum claim. We can only do that if we withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we manage to persuade the current countries of the UN who have ratified it that it should be amended to state that. Don't shoot me though. I am only the messenger! I can quite understand why people are so fed up with the situation. There are many who feel that the Refugee Convention is past its sell -by date and does not reflect the current realities of the modern world or the current needs of those facing persecution or other forms of serious harm in their countries of origin. The scale of abuse of the system is naturally a concern as is the criminality and callousness of people traffickers. Veronica If they do move the border to the UK...... the irony will be that there won't be any camp, they'll be up the M20 like rats up a drainpipe to London ;-) .............. Looks like those folk who live in London, will still get the open door migration they wanted :D ....... Good afternoon Dave. I see no irony as as I cannot recall anyone in the Remain camp that they said supported illegal migration which is what the Le Touquet agreement was rather successful in stemming, at least from Northern Europe. Veronica *-) I foresee that if they do move the border to the UK, and the French ferry companies make little effort to stop migrants, then I wouldn't be surprised if we closed the route.......there are plenty of other options for crossing the ditch ;-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix Meanderer Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 pelmetman - 2016-06-26 5:10 PM Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 3:58 PM pelmetman - 2016-06-26 1:53 PM Violet1956 - 2016-06-26 1:18 PM Rayjsj - 2016-06-26 11:33 AM Under the present situation i suggest we revoke our inclusion in the act. NO jungle or equivalent in Kent. If travellers or stowaways dont have the relevent visas or work permits. Ship them right back to where they came from. And fine the shipping line that allowed them to board. Job done. Nothing wrong with the Act I mentioned. If an illegal entrant claims asylum in the UK then the Act says it goes against them. The UK can't legislate to the effect that a faiure to claim in a safe country means that the asylum seeker can just be sent back to their country of origin without considering their asylum claim. We can only do that if we withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we manage to persuade the current countries of the UN who have ratified it that it should be amended to state that. Don't shoot me though. I am only the messenger! I can quite understand why people are so fed up with the situation. There are many who feel that the Refugee Convention is past its sell -by date and does not reflect the current realities of the modern world or the current needs of those facing persecution or other forms of serious harm in their countries of origin. The scale of abuse of the system is naturally a concern as is the criminality and callousness of people traffickers. Veronica If they do move the border to the UK...... the irony will be that there won't be any camp, they'll be up the M20 like rats up a drainpipe to London ;-) .............. Looks like those folk who live in London, will still get the open door migration they wanted :D ....... Good afternoon Dave. I see no irony as as I cannot recall anyone in the Remain camp that they said supported illegal migration which is what the Le Touquet agreement was rather successful in stemming, at least from Northern Europe. Veronica *-) I foresee that if they do move the border to the UK, and the French ferry companies make little effort to stop migrants, then I wouldn't be surprised if we closed the route.......there are plenty of other options for crossing the ditch ;-) ........... Which ferry company is that then? There are no french owned companies running ferry services from Calais any longer. Their only contribution it to provide the port facilities. The french trade unions did for Sea France some time ago. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 This thread seems to have no obvious relevance to ‘motorhome matters’. Would you like me to move it to the Chatterbox forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If contributors can resist temptation to digress into more general discussion of the consequences of the Referendum result, I think this thread could continue to be useful - but we do need to focus on how we think the transit through ChannelPorts will go for MHs will go in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave225 Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Problems exist not just solely at Calais. As the French have been having a summer of discord with strikes and fuel shortages etc a number of travellers to Spain have elected to avoid going through France and taken the England to Spain ferries. I gather that fares have reflected the greater demand, or is that just profiteering I wonder? In previous years I have usually taken the Hull to Zeebrugge route as it allows me a shorter drive home on the way back. Yes, a bit more expensive than the Dover route but the savings on fuel and stress balance things a bit. However, the downside is that when you get back to Hull there is always a drag of a wait while Border Control sl....owly go through the passports, when all you want to do is get on the road. If, I am unlucky and get held back on the boat it has taken nearly 1 hour just to get out of the docks. I would not be so unhappy if I thought it was doing some good, but when I see EU vehicles being literally waved through and us Brits being held while they sl...wly look at our passports, and our faces, and back to the passports, one tends to get a bit annoyed. I admit that this year I took the Tunnel and going through this rigmarole in France was a blessing as at the UK side I wa sstraight on to the road. There has to be asensible answer but I doubt our masters will find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.