Incorrect, I support a way of stopping the people smugglers. I have suggested a 'continent' plan to the asylum situation, which is neither in support of the Rwanda plan and which (in my view) needs to be given a chance to work in the absence of other feasible ideas.
Well then I completely misunderstood you, and I apologise if I misrepresented your views.
As is customary, the usual suspects (let's say the pro Brexiters) will say anything against what this government does or tries to do, everything, bar nothing.
Don’t know where I fit into this, but personally as I’ve explained above, I have serious issues with this announcement, as I believe it’s simply red meat for the voters, and is not a serious plan that they expect will discourage people smugglers, or will significantly reduce the asylum applications dealt with in the UK.
Much like the previous announced policy of turning the boats back in the Channel, that only this week Boris Johnson confirmed was actually too dangerous to proceed with – although announcing it as a policy, Priti Patel kept the voters happy for a while, until some other random idea could be announced… enter Rwanda.
Unless all people crossing the Channel were sent to Rwanda (which has never been the intention), why would it possibly be an incentive to stop the people smugglers? There will still be demand for their services, and they will continue to compromise life.
Given that, no-one has given any argument, let alone a credible one, as to why this policy would put the people smugglers out of business, and in the absence of that, it does leave a question over what the true intentions are of the gov’t, and the hopes of anyone supporting this policy.
I support the position of Conservative MPs, such as David Davis, as I’ve quoted previously.
Please don't let it be inferred that I'm either pro government or a racist. Both are ignorant assumptions. If it's better for the UK and it's people, then I'm for it.
If you’re not pro this government, I’ve misinterpreted your position when you suggest because I don’t like this policy, I must not like this government.
And I certainly believe that I distinguished those who I enjoy debating the matters with (including you, MOIC), and the blatantly racist contributors.
As you've mentioned several times in your quote, the UK left the Dublin Convention which stated that asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first country they land.
It (
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003R0343) says no such thing, as your subsequent quote clearly explains. It places responsibility for the
processing of an application on the first country they passed through; no responsibility is placed on an asylum seeker to actually apply in any specific country.
Since the UK departure the situation is purely between France & UK to negotiate, although France as well as all the countries asylum seekers get to, are all part of the Dublin Convention, so should adhere to it's rules.
Where are they not adhering to the rules of the Dublin Convention? People sitting in camps in Northern France, that have not made an application for asylum, cannot be treated as asylum seekers.
It's France's problem and they want to shift the problem on to the UK.
How is it France’s problem, the number (28,000, according to your figures in 2021) of asylum seekers entering the UK every year? As we left all arrangements we had with France (except paying them lots of money to patrol their beaches, which you say they don’t actually do, so no idea why I would support this gov’t policy either – sounds like more wasted money), it’s got nothing to do with France.
The French do not want any UK personnel patrolling their beaches as they know full well that they will stop an amount of boats crossing the channel and make it hard for the criminal gangs to get their unseaworthy boats into the sea. Do the French stop the?, No, not even one boat.
I have no idea what France’s motivation is, but I can perfectly understand the credible argument that they won’t allow a foreign country to act as a police force in their country – sovereignty. Why should they allow us to operate our forces unrestricted across 100s of miles of their country?
They just want to 'get rid' of as many migrants and asylum seekers out of their country and into British waters, which means the 'problem is for the UK to deal with.
Again, the problem with this argument is, 1) that they’re asylum seekers we’re debating, not migrants; and 2) they’re not asylum seekers until they actually make a claim for asylum, which they don’t do until they get into UK territory – the asylum seekers thus choosing to make the “problem” one for the UK to deal with.
if you think that the French will not encourage migrants and asylum seekers to any proposed processing center set up in France is simply for the birds. They want to reduce their migrant and asylum seeking population which is a vote winner for the current (perhaps incumbent) government. In an ideal world it may work, but given the strained relationship between the EU and Britain as well as the recent spat with the fishing rights and the French threatening to cut off electricity in Guernsey, It won't. The £54 million proposed deal with the French increasing their police patrols on the shores of Calais, came to nothing. The French ain't interested.
I simply do not think the French are interested in taking a dispute about fishing rights, or other Brexit-related matters, into an area that could stop bodies being washed ashore on their beaches.
They’ve proposed it, so how can you seriously argue they ain’t interested.
You've recently suggested a processing center in France and I'm sure you'll advocate to give it time to see if it will work. Why can't the same patience be allowed to work for other plans?
Because the other plans are legally far more complicated; will take a lot of time to implement (if we even got the agreement of 192 other countries - and Russia seems to think our actions are for electoral reasons, not genuinely about saving lives; are limited in their intentions; and most importantly, because it won’t apply to nearly-all asylum seekers, there will still be plenty of incentive for the people smugglers.
What other plans do you have in mind, or is it just the one? The French should solve their own problem, as guided by the Dublin Convention.
Agreed. Any examples of the French not doing so? When have they ignored asylum seekers?
(Remember, an asylum seeker only becomes an asylum seeker when they make an application to a country for asylum, not when they pass through a country on the way to make an application elsewhere in the world.)
The British courts, (including The Supreme Court) said the that the plane can legally take off. It was only a 'late night judge' (one) in Strasbourg:
The Court had regard to the concerns identified in the material before it, in particular by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that asylum-seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status.
Should the British High Court & Supreme Court be overruled? Perhaps that's for another thread.
I think the senior court (which has a UK judge on it) for these matters should be able to make a ruling, just like nearly all courts have an appeals process.
Rather than my view though, let’s take the view of someone who took a prominent position in the Brexit campaign, and takes a prominent position even today:
Boris Johnson at York Racecourse 23 May 2016 said:
I think it was one of the great things we gave to Europe. It was under Winston Churchill, it was a fine idea in the post-War environment.
I am not against the European Convention or indeed the Court because it's very important for us - the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights do not have to be applied either by the UK courts or by the UK Parliament.
The judgements of the European Court in Luxembourg do and Luxembourg is supreme.
Keep the European Convention, it's a fine thing. Get out of the EU.
12 people versus thousands a week - come on Karl, get a sense of perspective. Nearly 500 landed the other day alone at Dover. The fact that the border force have to be concentrated around Dover, leaves other areas unprotected. See the bigger picture. The smuggling gangs are no mugs and will do anything for money, including getting non-desirables into the UK.
I am looking at the bigger picture. Saying that there’s a small chance you may be deported to Rwanda, if you’re caught by Border Force, does not sound like anything of a disincentive for those making the journey. And why would it, given everything they’ve already gone through?
But if we remove the need for the journey completely for genuine asylum seekers, process them in France, then Border Force can be freed up to concentrate on the few that are genuinely trying to be smuggled into the UK, not simply entering UK territory to claim asylum.
cont/... (reply too big for one post)
Karl Limpert
