advertisement


United States of Europe??

You cut out the malignant trolling by playing all sides while not declaring your own position and I'll happily oblige.
You’ll never ‘oblige’, you can’t stop making posts that are often riddled with misrepresentations of what others post. You do it all the time to 2 other members as well because you know you can get away with it.

Here is what I said.
Yes, as long as they are out of France it’s a success for the French. They could always have a go at stopping these desperate people attempting such a dangerous voyage to horrible England, but of course, that means they would still be in France and that can’t be right.

It is not ‘playing both sides’, nor is it ‘malignant trolling’, it is spot on. The French should do more. Good for you that you can ignore it while people drown in the Channel.

My declared position is we should take our share, show where I have ever suggested different.

Is that all clear enough for you?
 
Lot of finger in the air piffle there, PSB. You are on form today!
After today's gems like the British consulate housing a whole year's worth of Channel migrants, and the migrant/expat in Strasbourg who hopes the protectionist EU will disintegrate because some people there get tax breaks and he doesn't, I'm struggling a bit to maintain the level.
 
What does that mean, "will have to be offshored"? Offshored to whom, where, and why? Why is a sovereign country that has just gone through a lot of pain and trouble to "take back control" so helpless that it has to outsource its own immigration controls to some third party? Do you see other global, world-beating nations like the US or China do this? The whole thing is bizarre.

Offshored means exactly what we were discussing earlier, processing applications in France. You were a part of that conversation, weren't you?

After today's gems like the British consulate housing a whole year's worth of Channel migrants...

Ah, yes, you were.
 
500 per week assumes they all show up to ask for visas/refugee status, which we know won't happen. Assume only half do so (probably a high estimate), you're down to 50 per day. A staff of 20-50 persons should be able to manage it. That's one medium-size office somewhere. Surely something HMG could come up with, if it really wanted to.

Of course it won't happen. I know that we shouldn't make assumptions in this notoriously sensitive area, but might it be reasonable to assume that amongst the factors that attract people to the UK is the relative openess of the labour markets, including the ones that go on below the radar, and the fact that we don't have ID cards? I believe that in is not unknown for some of these people to actually destroy their ID papers so that they can simply disappear, and its easier to disappear where there is no insistence upon ID cards.

Let me be clear; I'm open to anything that stops people from getting into flimsy boats in order to get here. The French and the British governments could do much to ameliorate this problem, but I suspect they'll never stop it altogether, even with the best will in the world. But if the people that did it, and got caught at this end, were to flown straight back to a processing centre in France, it might reduce the motivation to take the not inconsiderable risk, and cost, of trying.
 
Of course it won't happen. I know that we shouldn't make assumptions in this notoriously sensitive area, but might it be reasonable to assume that amongst the factors that attract people to the UK is the relative openess of the labour markets, including the ones that go on below the radar, and the fact that we don't have ID cards? I believe that in is not unknown for some of these people to actually destroy their ID papers so that they can simply disappear, and its easier to disappear where there is no insistence upon ID cards.
This does seem to be part of the draw. The other one is the English language, and the presence of family. Also worth keeping in mind that the cross-channel numbers so far have been relatively small, both relative to total numbers entering the EU and total immigrants to the UK.
Let me be clear; I'm open to anything that stops people from getting into flimsy boats in order to get here. The French and the British governments could do much to ameliorate this problem, but I suspect they'll never stop it altogether, even with the best will in the world. But if the people that did it, and got caught at this end, were to flown straight back to a processing centre in France, it might reduce the motivation to take the not inconsiderable risk, and cost, of trying.
It's hard to stop thousands of people dispersed over a wide area. Returning people may perhaps discourage some, but I wouldn't think people who have crossed continents and already attempted 6 crossings in dangerous circumstances are likely to be deterred much.
 
But if the people that did it, and got caught at this end, were to flown straight back to a processing centre in France, it might reduce the motivation to take the not inconsiderable risk, and cost, of trying.

That would be illegal under International Law. I know you like to blame the EU for everything, but at least educate yourself first. Brexit made no difference to our legal duties as a sovereign nation.

Also why would France or any EU country these people travelled through have them back once they became a UK responsibility?
 
Let me be clear; I'm open to anything that stops people from getting into flimsy boats in order to get here

Buy them a ferry ticket.

Then process them in the normal manner.

Let’s not forget that the attitude of this government to stop people crossing the channel is to prevent them from accessing their legal right to seek asylum.

If the risk to life of people crossing the channel in unsafe little boats is of primary concern, then buy them a ticket for a nice big safe boat.
 
That would be illegal under International Law. I know you like to blame the EU for everything, but at least educate yourself first. Brexit made no difference to our legal duties as a sovereign nation.

Also why would France or any EU country these people travelled through have them back once they became a UK responsibility?

My suggestion was built around the, albeit highly unlikely, concept of an agreement between Britain and France. Beyond the already mentioned fact that a borderless EU permits asylum seekers to travel pretty freely around the EU once they're in (when legally they should claim asylum in the first country in which they land), I don't think that I had 'blamed the EU' at all.

Of course France wouldn't want them back, but such an assertion does feed the theory that the French are standing by and waving them off, or escorting them to British waters.
 
Buy them a ferry ticket.

Then process them in the normal manner.

Let’s not forget that the attitude of this government to stop people crossing the channel is to prevent them from accessing their legal right to seek asylum.

If the risk to life of people crossing the channel in unsafe little boats is of primary concern, then buy them a ticket for a nice big safe boat.

Taking one line in a much longer post then using it to damage the poster’s argument looks frivolous/disingenuous to me.
 
Buy them a ferry ticket.

Then process them in the normal manner.

Let’s not forget that the attitude of this government to stop people crossing the channel is to prevent them from accessing their legal right to seek asylum.

If the risk to life of people crossing the channel in unsafe little boats is of primary concern, then buy them a ticket for a nice big safe boat.

The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Once here, our immigration laws and the Human Rights Act would make it effectively impossible to remove failed asylum applicants, as indeed it already does. It would act as an enormous flashing green light, our system would be overwhelmed, and the security connotations are unthinkable. No government would survive instigating such lunacy.

We've already been here today. It doesn't take long for these threads to start going around in circles.
 
The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Once here, our immigration laws and the Human Rights Act would make it effectively impossible to remove failed asylum applicants, as indeed it already does. It would act as an enormous flashing green light, our system would be overwhelmed, and the security connotations are unthinkable. No government would survive instigating such lunacy.

We've already been here today. It doesn't take long for these threads to start going around in circles.
G4S seem to have a solution- asphyxiate them to death before the flight leaves.
 
The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Once here, our immigration laws and the Human Rights Act would make it effectively impossible to remove failed asylum applicants, as indeed it already does. It would act as an enormous flashing green light, our system would be overwhelmed, and the security connotations are unthinkable. No government would survive instigating such lunacy.

We've already been here today. It doesn't take long for these threads to start going around in circles.
And yet we only process a quarter of asylum seekers that France does. Perhaps if we a sought an equitable arrangement with France, there wouldn’t be the same number seeking to cross the channel
 
My suggestion was built around the, albeit highly unlikely, concept of an agreement between Britain and France. Beyond the already mentioned fact that a borderless EU permits asylum seekers to travel pretty freely around the EU once they're in (when legally they should claim asylum in the first country in which they land), I don't think that I had 'blamed the EU' at all.

Of course France wouldn't want them back, but such an assertion does feed the theory that the French are standing by and waving them off, or escorting them to British waters.
You always blame the EU, or France particularly in this instance nor is there any assertion that France are "waving them off" except in your Brexiter xenophobic mind. UK takes the smallest proportion of asylum seekers already so a few more arriving safely rather than in body bags is fine by me and most people who have a shred of decency.
 
France rejected 84% of initial asylum applications in 2020, and Germany 56% of total applications, so presumably initial and appeal. Germany deported just under 11,000 rejected applicants, the rest were told to leave.

In the same year the UK refused around 50% on initial application, and of the 75% of rejected applications that went to appeal, a further 30% were accepted.

The overall numbers applying in the UK are indeed lower than EU countries. One could draw a possible conclusion to that in that most asylum seekers are applying in the country of arrival, as they legally should.
 
You always blame the EU, or France particularly in this instance nor is there any assertion that France are "waving them off" except in your Brexiter xenophobic mind. UK takes the smallest proportion of asylum seekers already so a few more arriving safely rather than in body bags is fine by me and most people who have a shred of decency.

Once again, I 'blamed' neither France or the EU except in so far as a borderless EU permits the asylum seekers to move around unhindered.

There has indeed been assertion that France is 'waving them off', or at least standing by, and also that French patrol boats are escorting them as far us British waters. Whether this is true or not I don't know. However, my point was quite simply that you made the point that France would not want them back, which inevitably feeds the assertion that it is happy to see them go.

You might not like it, but you kinda said it.
 
As it happens, Turkey takes vastly more asylum seekers than any other country. The EU bribes it €billions to do so.
 
You’ll never ‘oblige’, you can’t stop making posts that are often riddled with misrepresentations of what others post. You do it all the time to 2 other members as well because you know you can get away with it.

Here is what I said.


It is not ‘playing both sides’, nor is it ‘malignant trolling’, it is spot on. The French should do more. Good for you that you can ignore it while people drown in the Channel.

My declared position is we should take our share, show where I have ever suggested different.

Is that all clear enough for you?

I know what you said and it's exactly where Johnson and Farage are, hope the French will stop those trying to get to the UK purely to prevent us having to process them.

The use of the channel as strategy to prevent people reaching here is the "ignoring the people drowning" in this. Indeed, why not go full Patel and try and get boats turned round? Given that the UK is nowhere near taking our share and most of the blowhards resent every refugee we do take, you could do with passing this sentiment on, rather than trolling those who are already doing so.
 
I know what you said and it's exactly where Johnson and Farage are, hope the French will stop those trying to get to the UK purely to prevent us having to process them.

The use of the channel as strategy to prevent people reaching here is the "ignoring the people drowning" in this. Indeed, why not go full Patel and try and get boats turned round? Given that the UK is nowhere near taking our share and most of the blowhards resent every refugee we do take, you could do with passing this sentiment on, rather than trolling those who are already doing so.
The troll comment appears yet again. Pass what on and to whom?

Which bit of ‘we should take our share’ don’t you understand?

Where did I say anything that makes you think I ‘want the boats turned around’? Show the posts rather than your continued pathetic misrepresentation. Why are you making out I have an opinion on this I do not have? Do you repeatedly misrepresent people like this face to face? You’re really pathetic.
 
My suggestion was built around the, albeit highly unlikely, concept of an agreement between Britain and France. Beyond the already mentioned fact that a borderless EU permits asylum seekers to travel pretty freely around the EU once they're in (when legally they should claim asylum in the first country in which they land), I don't think that I had 'blamed the EU' at all.

Of course France wouldn't want them back, but such an assertion does feed the theory that the French are standing by and waving them off, or escorting them to British waters.
I believe the police and coast guard on the French side have instructions not to intervene once the boats are launched except to rescue when the boats are in trouble: the risk of capsizing overloaded semi-rigids by trying to intercept is just too great. The focus is on trying to stop the boats from launching, rescuing boats in trouble, arresting traffickers and tracing/disrupting the supply chain. So far this year, they have rescued (or stopped?) 7800, including >1000 on a single day (Nov 3).
 


advertisement


Back
Top