Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
Please, there's no need to be so condescending mate? You come across a bit rude at times.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just something I have noticed.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
Give them an outboard motor. The principle remains. Could we stop all of the @TSEs from leaving our shores and would we know where they were going to.
Imagine one Brit ended up in France and the other in Spain.
You don't think that it is up to France and Spain to police arrivals in their country but we should do it?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
How do you dump them back into France? I'm looking forward to suggestions now we no longer have appropriate treaties due to Brexit.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
Some people have a vision of Brexit turning the EU into a buffer state between us and the uncivilised masses.
All we want is for the EU to be responsible for the asylum seekers they let in. They are clearly doing a spectacularly rubbish job, as every brexit voter knew they would.
That's why I voted to leave. I knew we would end up on the hook for Merkel's grand gestures.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
Again this seems you actually are against cooperation, because you seem to be suggesting that there is no room for a cooperative arrangement now we've left the EU, as though it is not possible for the EU nations to have cooperations with non-EU nations.
If there is a problem it remains a problem whether we are in or out of the EU. How the problem is addressed and the form of cooperation and assistance may well by necessity be different with us being out of it, and I have no doubt whatsoever some very unreasonable demands will be made.
But it is surely not the case that something ceases to be a problem for France once we are out of the EU. Not least because it is possible without assistance - even if not obligatory - things will develop into something which is more their problem.
It's self interest - there will be lots of things which in a direct sense are our problem, not France's, but which it may be better for them if they involve themselves. And vice-versa.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
Again this seems you actually are against cooperation, because you seem to be suggesting that there is no room for a cooperative arrangement now we've left the EU, as though it is not possible for the EU nations to have cooperations with non-EU nations.
If there is a problem it remains a problem whether we are in or out of the EU. How the problem is addressed and the form of cooperation and assistance may well by necessity be different with us being out of it, and I have no doubt whatsoever some very unreasonable demands will be made.
But it is surely not the case that something ceases to be a problem for France once we are out of the EU. Not least because it is possible without assistance - even if not obligatory - things will develop into something which is more their problem.
It's self interest - there will be lots of things which in a direct sense are our problem, not France's, but which it may be better for them if they involve themselves. And vice-versa.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
Again this seems you actually are against cooperation, because you seem to be suggesting that there is no room for a cooperative arrangement now we've left the EU, as though it is not possible for the EU nations to have cooperations with non-EU nations.
If there is a problem it remains a problem whether we are in or out of the EU. How the problem is addressed and the form of cooperation and assistance may well by necessity be different with us being out of it, and I have no doubt whatsoever some very unreasonable demands will be made.
But it is surely not the case that something ceases to be a problem for France once we are out of the EU. Not least because it is possible without assistance - even if not obligatory - things will develop into something which is more their problem.
It's self interest - there will be lots of things which in a direct sense are our problem, not France's, but which it may be better for them if they involve themselves. And vice-versa.
Co-operation, good.
Demanding the French pay, bad.
People can demand what they want, it doesn’t make a difference.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
There's no need to be so condescending mate. You come across a bit rude at times.
When people are advocating policies that directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people then I do think it is right to get a bit rude about it. I firmly believe that Merkel's decision back in 2015 directly encouraged the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people in the Mediterranean. At the same time she effectively scuppered plans that would have seen many vulnerable people taken to safety from camps in Turkey and Jordan. She has a great deal of blood on her hands.
What is now being supported by people like Topping, whilst not on the same scale, is effectively the same. Migrants will be dying in the channel. And as long as they know that if they reach here they will not be returned then they will continue to attempt the crossing.
A uniform policy of preventing illegal entry whilst at the same time taking the most vulnerable directly from camps either around the war zones or in the rest of the EU would save lives. But that is a difficult option and also removes the opportunity for political points scoring by people like Topping so of course he won't support it.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
Again this seems you actually are against cooperation, because you seem to be suggesting that there is no room for a cooperative arrangement now we've left the EU, as though it is not possible for the EU nations to have cooperations with non-EU nations.
If there is a problem it remains a problem whether we are in or out of the EU. How the problem is addressed and the form of cooperation and assistance may well by necessity be different with us being out of it, and I have no doubt whatsoever some very unreasonable demands will be made.
But it is surely not the case that something ceases to be a problem for France once we are out of the EU. Not least because it is possible without assistance - even if not obligatory - things will develop into something which is more their problem.
It's self interest - there will be lots of things which in a direct sense are our problem, not France's, but which it may be better for them if they involve themselves. And vice-versa.
Co-operation, good.
Demanding the French pay, bad.
People can demand what they want, it doesn’t make a difference.
I was referring to the YouGov poll initially, where it was asking about the French paying.
The French aren't going to pay and demands they do will go nowhere.
So the reality is, we can pay to protect our own borders. Now we've left the EU, let's do it.
I'm simply saying that the idea the French will co-operate in any way like we used to co-operate is a pipe dream.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
Which is our fault, we need to set a much higher bar and many, many more automatic deportation orders. I'd also take the Blair route and have detention centres until they are processed so there is no chance of illegally working and ease of locating them if they need to be deported. Making the conditions inhospitable and setting a higher bar is the only way to ensure we get genuine applicants. It's a shitty thing to do, but the road that the nation ends up down if we start accepting 100k plus asylum seekers per year without deportation is our version of Salvini, or Orban which we can both agree is undesirable.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
Why is it so hard for you to understand people from faraway shores being so attracted to GREAT Britain - as compared to the likes of France and Germany - that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here?
See, I can do it too.
Just a bit better.
Britain is a country stack full of white shaven headed knuckle dragging racists. Don;t take my word for it Ask the worthies of BLM and the rest of the left.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
There's no need to be so condescending mate. You come across a bit rude at times.
When people are advocating policies that directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people then I do think it is right to get a bit rude about it. I firmly believe that Merkel's decision back in 2015 directly encouraged the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people in the Mediterranean. At the same time she effectively scuppered plans that would have seen many vulnerable people taken to safety from camps in Turkey and Jordan. She has a great deal of blood on her hands.
What is now being supported by people like Topping, whilst not on the same scale, is effectively the same. Migrants will be dying in the channel. And as long as they know that if they reach here they will not be returned then they will continue to attempt the crossing.
A uniform policy of preventing illegal entry whilst at the same time taking the most vulnerable directly from camps either around the war zones or in the rest of the EU would save lives. But that is a difficult option and also removes the opportunity for political points scoring by people like Topping so of course he won't support it.
I'm not suggesting they don't be returned - although I don't know if that's even possible under International law, nor under laws of asylum - but I am taking issue with the idea that France should pay.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
There's no need to be so condescending mate. You come across a bit rude at times.
When people are advocating policies that directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people then I do think it is right to get a bit rude about it. I firmly believe that Merkel's decision back in 2015 directly encouraged the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people in the Mediterranean. At the same time she effectively scuppered plans that would have seen many vulnerable people taken to safety from camps in Turkey and Jordan. She has a great deal of blood on her hands.
What is now being supported by people like Topping, whilst not on the same scale, is effectively the same. Migrants will be dying in the channel. And as long as they know that if they reach here they will not be returned then they will continue to attempt the crossing.
A uniform policy of preventing illegal entry whilst at the same time taking the most vulnerable directly from camps either around the war zones or in the rest of the EU would save lives. But that is a difficult option and also removes the opportunity for political points scoring by people like Topping so of course he won't support it.
No. I knew it was a bit too complex for you, Dickie, to understand the point I was making which was nothing to do with encouraging people to come here.
I agree with all the discouragement in the world to stop people beginning the voyage in the first place.
My point related to what happens once they are here.
Sorry my PB skills aren't up to painting a picture for you but maybe ask an adult to explain the point I was making. It was fairly straightforward.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
Why is it so hard for you to understand people from faraway shores being so attracted to GREAT Britain - as compared to the likes of France and Germany - that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here?
See, I can do it too.
Just a bit better.
Britain is a country stack full of white shaven headed knuckle dragging racists. Don;t take my word for it Ask the worthies of BLM and the rest of the left.
Who wants to go to a country like that?
Aren't we, in fact, doing the refugees a favour by trying to deny them the horrors of Brexit Britain?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
Refugees leaving France for the UK is a UK problem that needs French help to solve. That may mean paying for it. Unfortunately, we have got ourselves into a situation where politically there is potentially a significant cost in doing this. It is not a price that a populist government with the support base our current one has is going to be willing to pay unless it can be dressed up as a victory. That will take time.
In the great scheme of things, the issue is a minor one. There is no invasion. There is during, the summer months, a flow of sorts so that overall a few thousand people may land here illegally. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but if you take a step back, it is not coronavirus, it is not getting kids back to school, it is not a potential economic crash. Grown-ups could solve it quickly.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
Comparing Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany to migrants fleeing The European Union has to be the most spectacularly stupid comparison I think I heard in some time.
Or maybe it isn't! maybe there are parallels! Willie Glenn, over to you!
Refugees leaving France for the UK is a UK problem that needs French help to solve. That may mean paying for it. Unfortunately, we have got ourselves into a situation where politically there is potentially a significant cost in doing this. It is not a price that a populist government with the support base our current one has is going to be willing to pay unless it can be dressed up as a victory. That will take time.
In the great scheme of things, the issue is a minor one. There is no invasion. There is during, the summer months, a flow of sorts so that overall a few thousand people may land here illegally. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but if you take a step back, it is not coronavirus, it is not getting kids back to school, it is not a potential economic crash. Grown-ups could solve it quickly.
France and the UK might share the cost, I have no idea.
But France isn't going to pay, politically they won't do it and morally I can't see why they should either.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
Why is it so hard for you to understand people from faraway shores being so attracted to GREAT Britain - as compared to the likes of France and Germany - that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here?
See, I can do it too.
Just a bit better.
Britain is a country stack full of white shaven headed knuckle dragging racists. Don;t take my word for it Ask the worthies of BLM and the rest of the left.
Who wants to go to a country like that?
Aren't we, in fact, doing the refugees a favour by trying to deny them the horrors of Brexit Britain?
Well quite, talk about our of the frying pan into the fire....
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Whilst I know you revel in ignorance, it is true that it is no defence in law and should not be a defence here either. If you want to pretend that someone rowed all the way here from Somalia then feel free. It makes about as much sense as anything else you write.
How do you dump them back into France? I'm looking forward to suggestions now we no longer have appropriate treaties due to Brexit.
Since they weren't enforcing the rules anyway it is pretty much immaterial whether we were in or out.
Refugees leaving France for the UK is a UK problem that needs French help to solve. That may mean paying for it. Unfortunately, we have got ourselves into a situation where politically there is potentially a significant cost in doing this. It is not a price that a populist government with the support base our current one has is going to be willing to pay unless it can be dressed up as a victory. That will take time.
In the great scheme of things, the issue is a minor one. There is no invasion. There is during, the summer months, a flow of sorts so that overall a few thousand people may land here illegally. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but if you take a step back, it is not coronavirus, it is not getting kids back to school, it is not a potential economic crash. Grown-ups could solve it quickly.
Blair didn't solve it when Labour were in power. Blair created the problem.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
Perhaps they should pay to secure their own borders. How else did they manage to trek all the way from the south of France to the north without being stopped?
France puts refugee camps in the North East of France because it is politically popular in France to do so.
It is not just the UK that complains: the Belgians and the Dutch do too, because those asylum seekers also head north to Amsterdam and Brussels rather than hang around in the wasteland that is the Pas de Calais.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
IF we do 'dump' migrants into France, we are only doing to the French what they have done to us.
France, Germany, Italy, all of them. They are all guilty of migrant dumping, and they should all be called out on it. What other reason prompts people to risk their lives in this way? It can only be the harshness of the way they are treated in these so called civilised countries./ There can be no other reason why so many attempt this crossing.
Some of us saw this coming, and didn't want to be a part of it, because we guessed where the migrants were always going to be dumped. Its this that swayed me to leave.
There was never any way a country like Germany, or France or any of them could accommodate million plus migrant numbers and now they are looking for a way out like they were always going to.
Shame on France, Germany and the effing rest of them
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
That's true. As stated above, I am all for stopping the pull factors and agree with the processing on site in the regions concerned.
The second part of your post, however, is where the crux of the issue is. Because of course we won't be a part of the club any more where such decisions are made for the common good. Because we determined that the EU common good was not our common good although your post slightly suggests that it is in fact our common good also.
And hence each country is left to its own devices (as we wanted with our Brexit vote) and my point is that you can't police people leaving your country, you can police people entering it and you shouldn't try to outsource the former.
"But then there's a second thing we've got to do and that is to look at the legal framework that we have that means that when people do get here, it is very, very difficult to then send them away again even though blatantly they've come here illegally," the PM added.
But if they're already here and they're claiming asylum legitimately, is his argument that we still deport them? Do people support this line of thinking?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
I know the banlieues are pretty bad - but actual war zones?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
No, what I wrote was completely true. No EU country is currently at war. And the regulations still stand. Unfortunately the EU decided not to enforce them.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It's cake-ism.
Or rather, it's Brexiter exceptionalism which believes that all international rules should be constructed on the basis that the UK deserves special treatment.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
I know the banlieues are pretty bad - but actual war zones?
If you came from Syria and came to the UK recently, you're fleeing a war zone.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
Your reaction is a bigger tell.
Of what?
Your kneejerk reaction against anyone who questions your strange ideas about responsibility. I notice you are always ready to criticise but fail to come up with any solutions yourself. You would rather play politics with people's lives.
Overthinking it, Richard. It really was just what it said on the tin.
I was surprised - and not pleasantly so - to read that from you. That WE should "DUMP THEM BACK" when talking about people. It sounded rather "off". Leapt off the screen. So I was moved to comment.
Perhaps my "language is a tell" was too damning. I'm happy to withdraw this and assume - unless there is further evidence to the contrary - that it was simply an unfortunate rushed and colloquial phrasing on your part and that you are what you say you are - that rarest of creatures - a liberal libertarian pro-immigration leaver.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
No, what I wrote was completely true. No EU country is currently at war. And the regulations still stand. Unfortunately the EU decided not to enforce them.
If somebody comes from say, Syria to the UK via somewhere else, they're still fleeing a war...
I knew things in Sangette were bad - but concentration camps?
So the French are not merely being a bit inhospitable to refugees? They have established concentration camps!
Good god. A failed state next door. With access to weapons of mass destruction. That can be deployed in 45 minutes or less....
We must invade immediately.
Heart chortles all round, you'll be a biting satirist afore ye know it.
Perhaps the point is that the UK could probably turn off its self congratulatory mode and consider that it's not always been a great judge of who is in real need. Of course the shining jewel in the crown of British self congratulation is Nicholas Winton, an 'ardent socialist' who with other individuals saved hundreds of Jewish kids off their own bat with only lukewarm support from HMG.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
That's true. As stated above, I am all for stopping the pull factors and agree with the processing on site in the regions concerned.
The second part of your post, however, is where the crux of the issue is. Because of course we won't be a part of the club any more where such decisions are made for the common good. Because we determined that the EU common good was not our common good although your post slightly suggests that it is in fact our common good also.
And hence each country is left to its own devices (as we wanted with our Brexit vote) and my point is that you can't police people leaving your country, you can police people entering it and you shouldn't try to outsource the former.
Again, if the UK amended the HRA and instituted automatic deportation to country of origin within a day or two of landfall the pull factor of coming to the UK does fall very fast. If economic migrants posing as asylum seekers realise that they can't disappear into the ether and live and work illegally for a few years and then get deported with £10-20k cash sent home to their family then they wouldn't bother coming. It's our policies on this that create the pull factor specifically to the UK. We can do these things unilaterally, though a cooperative approach with the whole continent would be good also.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
No, what I wrote was completely true. No EU country is currently at war. And the regulations still stand. Unfortunately the EU decided not to enforce them.
Which is why it's great we left the EU to forge our path as a great independent nation.
Just one that wants to outsource its border policy to another country.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
We’re not in the EU anymore so you can stop whinging about it.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
"But then there's a second thing we've got to do and that is to look at the legal framework that we have that means that when people do get here, it is very, very difficult to then send them away again even though blatantly they've come here illegally," the PM added.
But if they're already here and they're claiming asylum legitimately, is his argument that we still deport them? Do people support this line of thinking?
Personally I fall into the "yes" category under the current definition of asylum. The bar is set too low and it has just become an alternate immigration route.
Speaking about the film’s 40th anniversary to Edith Bowman on Yahoo Movies, the actor said that whenever he goes, people demand he recite his character’s catchphrase.
“Everywhere I go, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’,” said Blessed. “The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, horses and queens, and prime ministers, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’, it’s their favourite film.”
He continued: “The Queen, it’s her favourite film, she watches it with her grandchildren every Christmas.”
The actor then assumed the Queen’s accent, quoting her as saying: “You know, we watch Flash Gordon all the time, me and the grandchildren. And if you don’t mind, I’ve got the grandchildren here, would you mind saying ‘Gordon’s alive’?”...
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
But is this relevant? We're not part of the EU anymore, so it doesn't apply anymore anyway.
"But then there's a second thing we've got to do and that is to look at the legal framework that we have that means that when people do get here, it is very, very difficult to then send them away again even though blatantly they've come here illegally," the PM added.
But if they're already here and they're claiming asylum legitimately, is his argument that we still deport them? Do people support this line of thinking?
Personally I fall into the "yes" category under the current definition of asylum. The bar is set too low and it has just become an alternate immigration route.
But isn't asylum internationally defined and so to change it would be against international law
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
That's true. As stated above, I am all for stopping the pull factors and agree with the processing on site in the regions concerned.
The second part of your post, however, is where the crux of the issue is. Because of course we won't be a part of the club any more where such decisions are made for the common good. Because we determined that the EU common good was not our common good although your post slightly suggests that it is in fact our common good also.
And hence each country is left to its own devices (as we wanted with our Brexit vote) and my point is that you can't police people leaving your country, you can police people entering it and you shouldn't try to outsource the former.
Again, if the UK amended the HRA and instituted automatic deportation to country of origin within a day or two of landfall the pull factor of coming to the UK does fall very fast. If economic migrants posing as asylum seekers realise that they can't disappear into the ether and live and work illegally for a few years and then get deported with £10-20k cash sent home to their family then they wouldn't bother coming. It's our policies on this that create the pull factor specifically to the UK. We can do these things unilaterally, though a cooperative approach with the whole continent would be good also.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
Also, this isn't really an EU/not-EU argument. We've been having this same discussion about Calais migrants for as long as I can remember. Under Blair, under Brown, under Cameron and since we voted to leave. The issue is the pull factor not whatever Dublin rules countries do or don't care about.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
No that cannot be right, because they very people who advocate us simply accepting the migrants are the same ones supporting people like BLM who call us a nation of white racists.
as opposed to tolerant, civilised France. You know, the country the migrants want to risk their lives to leave.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
How would anyone know where they came from?
The border force has plenty of linguistics experts. Iirc we helped Germany sort out legitimate Syrians from those claiming to be Syrian but actually from Pakistan etc...
But this is all on the receiving side. We are asking the sending side to police it all. Those arguing for it are saying that the UK should patrol UK waters and stop people leaving.
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
But the point is that we, and other European countries, need mechanisms to deport spurious asylum seekers very quickly, within days of them making landfall and not just to another European country, to their country of origin. Just dumping them on another European country is just going to shift the problem elsewhere and not actually going to reduce or eliminate the pull factor. The only way to actually resolve the issue of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers is to eliminate the pull factor across the whole continent.
That's true. As stated above, I am all for stopping the pull factors and agree with the processing on site in the regions concerned.
The second part of your post, however, is where the crux of the issue is. Because of course we won't be a part of the club any more where such decisions are made for the common good. Because we determined that the EU common good was not our common good although your post slightly suggests that it is in fact our common good also.
And hence each country is left to its own devices (as we wanted with our Brexit vote) and my point is that you can't police people leaving your country, you can police people entering it and you shouldn't try to outsource the former.
Again, if the UK amended the HRA and instituted automatic deportation to country of origin within a day or two of landfall the pull factor of coming to the UK does fall very fast. If economic migrants posing as asylum seekers realise that they can't disappear into the ether and live and work illegally for a few years and then get deported with £10-20k cash sent home to their family then they wouldn't bother coming. It's our policies on this that create the pull factor specifically to the UK. We can do these things unilaterally, though a cooperative approach with the whole continent would be good also.
I agree with the principle of this which has been my point all along - the receiving country should be responsible for handling people who arrive on its shores.
Edit: Not sure about the HRA bit - which part in particular you are thinking of amending.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
I'm sorry we;re not right now in a position to offer migrants a menu of choices based on their predilections.
You may not have noticed but we have other priorities.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
But is this relevant? We're not part of the EU anymore, so it doesn't apply anymore anyway.
So what would you now like to happen?
Actually it still does apply until the end of the year but that is simply a matter of timing. Now we do whatsoever is necessary. If that means paying the French I have no problem at all with that. The important thing is to stop people making the crossing. And ideally to stop them crossing into Europe as well - at least by sea.
So we set up asylum processing centres in other countries. Obviously not those countries the people are fleeing as the governments tend to look unfavourably on that. But adjacent states like Jordan and Turkey for Syria. What you need to do is remove the hope people have that they will be able to get in by making a dangerous journey and instead give them a mechanism to seek asylum more safely. But doing one without the other just won't work.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
No that cannot be right, because they very people who advocate us simply accepting the migrants are the same ones supporting people like BLM who call us a nation of white racists.
as opposed to tolerant, civilised France. You know, the country the migrants want to risk their lives to leave.
I’m sure the same people would call France a nation of white racists too so I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
No that cannot be right, because they very people who advocate us simply accepting the migrants are the same ones supporting people like BLM who call us a nation of white racists.
as opposed to tolerant, civilised France. You know, the country the migrants want to risk their lives to leave.
There are racists in both France and the UK, so that has little bearing on the issue. As I said, the main attractions of the UK according to the migrants themselves are: contacts, language and job prospects.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
I'm sure that COVID and Brexit will do a lot to lessen the "pull" factors bringing them here.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
But they are coming from France. The fear of death doesn't come into it anymore. There are legitimate ways to migrate from France to the UK.
Speaking about the film’s 40th anniversary to Edith Bowman on Yahoo Movies, the actor said that whenever he goes, people demand he recite his character’s catchphrase.
“Everywhere I go, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’,” said Blessed. “The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, horses and queens, and prime ministers, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’, it’s their favourite film.”
He continued: “The Queen, it’s her favourite film, she watches it with her grandchildren every Christmas.”
The actor then assumed the Queen’s accent, quoting her as saying: “You know, we watch Flash Gordon all the time, me and the grandchildren. And if you don’t mind, I’ve got the grandchildren here, would you mind saying ‘Gordon’s alive’?”...
This is the man who punched the Dalai Lama and told Picasso who was a rubbish artist.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
Boo hoo.
Of course you don't care about people ignoring the rules. That is why you are such a fan of the EU.
Also, this isn't really an EU/not-EU argument. We've been having this same discussion about Calais migrants for as long as I can remember. Under Blair, under Brown, under Cameron and since we voted to leave. The issue is the pull factor not whatever Dublin rules countries do or don't care about.
Yes exactly. The debate today is that people think that France or the EU or someone else should help us (for a payment) to police our own borders.
That is transparent bollocks and the fact that Brexiters are advocating outsourcing our border policy so strongly really is a head-scratching phenomenon.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
We’re not in the EU anymore so you can stop whinging about it.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
Boo hoo.
Of course you don't care about people ignoring the rules. That is why you are such a fan of the EU.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
But when we've left the EU, this surely doesn't apply to us anymore. So what's your contention?
It doesn't matter if it applies or not since the EU has been effectively ignoring it for the last 5 years.
Boo hoo.
Of course you don't care about people ignoring the rules. That is why you are such a fan of the EU.
You're both kind of losing my patience with these posts.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
We’re not in the EU anymore so you can stop whinging about it.
Your blind loyalty to the EU knows no limits.
My opinion of the EU has no relevance to your continual whinging about an organisation we’re not even a member of anymore. Get a grip man.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
That's a silly comment clearly meant to deflect and obscure.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Nope no embarrassment at all. If people are trying to enter the country illegally then I have no reason to be embarrassed about my language. I have a proposal to deal with this. But it would prevent you making facile political points so you are unwilling to consider it.
If they're trying to enter a country illegally, fleeing war, do you think that's a good or a bad thing? Or is it just the UK you have an issue with them entering?
If they have come to the UK from an EU country they are not fleeing war. There are supposed to be rules in place to cover this but the EU decided it was too politically difficult to enforce them.
Not really true, they are still fleeing war.
Is it that bad in France?
It's not that it's bad in France, it's that the migrants reckon they can make a better life for themselves here. From what I've read, the main reasons for attempting to reach the UK are 1) They have already have contacts here 2) They can speak at least some of the language 3) It's easier to get a job here.
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
But they are coming from France. The fear of death doesn't come into it anymore. There are legitimate ways to migrate from France to the UK.
To repeat, the point is not that they fear death in France; it's that they consider they have better prospects in the UK due to having contacts here, speaking the lingo, etc. If you had to leave the UK, would you not want to reach people you knew in a place where you spoke the language and had a better chance of making a living for yourself?
I knew things in Sangette were bad - but concentration camps?
So the French are not merely being a bit inhospitable to refugees? They have established concentration camps!
Good god. A failed state next door. With access to weapons of mass destruction. That can be deployed in 45 minutes or less....
We must invade immediately.
Heart chortles all round, you'll be a biting satirist afore ye know it.
Perhaps the point is that the UK could probably turn off its self congratulatory mode and consider that it's not always been a great judge of who is in real need. Of course the shining jewel in the crown of British self congratulation is Nicholas Winton, an 'ardent socialist' who with other individuals saved hundreds of Jewish kids off their own bat with only lukewarm support from HMG.
Perhaps.
But it is funnier than the the near certainty that children will be drowning tonight.
Mind you, I could be wrong - "Their choice it was plain between drownin' in 'eaps an' bein' mopped by the screw"
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
We’re not in the EU anymore so you can stop whinging about it.
Your blind loyalty to the EU knows no limits.
My opinion of the EU has no relevance to your continual whinging about an organisation we’re not even a member of anymore. Get a grip man.
Actually it has a lot of relevance because it colours your every comment. You are a bitter and twisted man.
Well, that was an interesting guest we just had over for lunch....
Her father's fiance was Sophie Scholl, a member of the White Rose resistance to the Nazi's, guillotined at 21. Her father, also a member of the White Rose, somehow survived the war.
That's what you call political activism....
(Our guest was also at the heart of everything in Laurel Canyon in the late 60's. Photos of her then look like Vogue photo-shoots. The litany of people she was close to then was jaw-dropping. Her best female friend was killed by the Manson family. She was very close to Jim Morrison - although somehow managed to stay a virgin until her wedding night!)
She is still modelling - at 73.
This post sent me scuttling to my bookshelf where I found Inge Scholl's Die weisse Rose which had been a required text for a short German course I took in 1963. Inge was Sophie's sister I think, and so was your guest's aunt I suppose. The past comes alive with this kind of connection.
Edit: - Not the aunt but a close connection nevertheless.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
The problem was there long before we ever started talking about leaving the EU. The problem is not asylum seekers, it is that the rest of the EU have chosen to ignore their own rules on this and just pass the problem along. It is no wonder people want out when the EU attitude to rules in all sorts of areas is to ignore the ones they don't like or they are powerful enough to over-rule the rest of the community on.
Sorry, I'm confused.
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
The Dublin II regulations which governed the treatment of asylum seekers stated that they should be processed in the first EU country they entered. The EU Commission decided to unilaterally abandon those rules when countries simply decided to ignore them and pass the problems on.
What would you have done after Greece was overwhelmed and people were marching across Hungary? There was never any prospect of Cameron taking enough people directly from Turkey to make a difference.
There should have been. I have no problem at all with taking large numbers of people who are fleeing war. Nor with paying to improve the lot of the vast majority who want to stay in camps close to their homeland so they can eventually go home. Unfortunately all of that was undermined by Merkel and the Commission. As I said, the UK alone was paying more to support the refugees in the camps than the whole of the rest of the EU combined.
We’re not in the EU anymore so you can stop whinging about it.
Your blind loyalty to the EU knows no limits.
My opinion of the EU has no relevance to your continual whinging about an organisation we’re not even a member of anymore. Get a grip man.
Actually it has a lot of relevance because it colours your every comment. You are a bitter and twisted man.
I’ve actually accepted Brexit. You’re the one who can’t seem to let go. Everything is still somehow their fault. 🤔
Comments
So the French are not merely being a bit inhospitable to refugees? They have established concentration camps!
Good god. A failed state next door. With access to weapons of mass destruction. That can be deployed in 45 minutes or less....
We must invade immediately.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just something I have noticed.
Imagine one Brit ended up in France and the other in Spain.
You don't think that it is up to France and Spain to police arrivals in their country but we should do it?
Ignore their own rules, what rules do you refer?
These people have a legal right to claim asylum here.
That's why I voted to leave. I knew we would end up on the hook for Merkel's grand gestures.
No thanks love.
If there is a problem it remains a problem whether we are in or out of the EU. How the problem is addressed and the form of cooperation and assistance may well by necessity be different with us being out of it, and I have no doubt whatsoever some very unreasonable demands will be made.
But it is surely not the case that something ceases to be a problem for France once we are out of the EU. Not least because it is possible without assistance - even if not obligatory - things will develop into something which is more their problem.
It's self interest - there will be lots of things which in a direct sense are our problem, not France's, but which it may be better for them if they involve themselves. And vice-versa.
Demanding the French pay, bad.
https://twitter.com/ScotSecofState/status/1292864291633270784?s=20
I am saying that that is impractical and that it is up to the receiving side, as you say, to determine where people have come from and then act upon that.
As to what the legal position is in terms of where you "send them back" to that is a separate issue.
People are saying that France should police its own borders to stop people coming to the UK. But that is like saying we should police our own borders to stop people going to Spain in a small boat.
What is now being supported by people like Topping, whilst not on the same scale, is effectively the same. Migrants will be dying in the channel. And as long as they know that if they reach here they will not be returned then they will continue to attempt the crossing.
A uniform policy of preventing illegal entry whilst at the same time taking the most vulnerable directly from camps either around the war zones or in the rest of the EU would save lives. But that is a difficult option and also removes the opportunity for political points scoring by people like Topping so of course he won't support it.
The French aren't going to pay and demands they do will go nowhere.
So the reality is, we can pay to protect our own borders. Now we've left the EU, let's do it.
I'm simply saying that the idea the French will co-operate in any way like we used to co-operate is a pipe dream.
You now realize that recommending we "dump them back" when talking about people rather than garbage was not great and you are embarrassed by it.
Which is to your credit.
Who wants to go to a country like that?
Which is what it will look like if the SNP win a majority next year and are denied a referendum.
I agree with all the discouragement in the world to stop people beginning the voyage in the first place.
My point related to what happens once they are here.
Sorry my PB skills aren't up to painting a picture for you but maybe ask an adult to explain the point I was making. It was fairly straightforward.
North Wales today.
This is just the top 50 marginal seats tour isn't it
Labour aren't fighting for jobs, just saying they are.
In the great scheme of things, the issue is a minor one. There is no invasion. There is during, the summer months, a flow of sorts so that overall a few thousand people may land here illegally. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but if you take a step back, it is not coronavirus, it is not getting kids back to school, it is not a potential economic crash. Grown-ups could solve it quickly.
Or maybe it isn't! maybe there are parallels! Willie Glenn, over to you!
But France isn't going to pay, politically they won't do it and morally I can't see why they should either.
It is not just the UK that complains: the Belgians and the Dutch do too, because those asylum seekers also head north to Amsterdam and Brussels rather than hang around in the wasteland that is the Pas de Calais.
But that's contrary to the French paying - and I can't see any such "capitulation" being perceived well for Johnson.
France, Germany, Italy, all of them. They are all guilty of migrant dumping, and they should all be called out on it. What other reason prompts people to risk their lives in this way? It can only be the harshness of the way they are treated in these so called civilised countries./
There can be no other reason why so many attempt this crossing.
Some of us saw this coming, and didn't want to be a part of it, because we guessed where the migrants were always going to be dumped. Its this that swayed me to leave.
There was never any way a country like Germany, or France or any of them could accommodate million plus migrant numbers and now they are looking for a way out like they were always going to.
Shame on France, Germany and the effing rest of them
The second part of your post, however, is where the crux of the issue is. Because of course we won't be a part of the club any more where such decisions are made for the common good. Because we determined that the EU common good was not our common good although your post slightly suggests that it is in fact our common good also.
And hence each country is left to its own devices (as we wanted with our Brexit vote) and my point is that you can't police people leaving your country, you can police people entering it and you shouldn't try to outsource the former.
But if they're already here and they're claiming asylum legitimately, is his argument that we still deport them? Do people support this line of thinking?
Or rather, it's Brexiter exceptionalism which believes that all international rules should be constructed on the basis that the UK deserves special treatment.
I was surprised - and not pleasantly so - to read that from you. That WE should "DUMP THEM BACK" when talking about people. It sounded rather "off". Leapt off the screen. So I was moved to comment.
Perhaps my "language is a tell" was too damning. I'm happy to withdraw this and assume - unless there is further evidence to the contrary - that it was simply an unfortunate rushed and colloquial phrasing on your part and that you are what you say you are - that rarest of creatures - a liberal libertarian pro-immigration leaver.
Perhaps the point is that the UK could probably turn off its self congratulatory mode and consider that it's not always been a great judge of who is in real need. Of course the shining jewel in the crown of British self congratulation is Nicholas Winton, an 'ardent socialist' who with other individuals saved hundreds of Jewish kids off their own bat with only lukewarm support from HMG.
Just one that wants to outsource its border policy to another country.
Is that what you voted for?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/aug/10/brian-blessed-flash-gordon-is-the-queens-favourite-film
...Brian Blessed has claimed that the Queen revealed to him that her favourite film is Flash Gordon, the 1980 sci-fi in which he stars as Prince Vultan.
Speaking about the film’s 40th anniversary to Edith Bowman on Yahoo Movies, the actor said that whenever he goes, people demand he recite his character’s catchphrase.
“Everywhere I go, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’,” said Blessed. “The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, horses and queens, and prime ministers, they all want me to say ‘Gordon’s alive!’, it’s their favourite film.”
He continued: “The Queen, it’s her favourite film, she watches it with her grandchildren every Christmas.”
The actor then assumed the Queen’s accent, quoting her as saying: “You know, we watch Flash Gordon all the time, me and the grandchildren. And if you don’t mind, I’ve got the grandchildren here, would you mind saying ‘Gordon’s alive’?”...
So what would you now like to happen?
Just think about: If you were forced to leave the UK for fear of death, where would you go? Would you be happy to stay somewhere where you didn't know anybody or speak the language? Or would you try to reach friends in a place where you could understand the lingo and had a change of getting a job?
as opposed to tolerant, civilised France. You know, the country the migrants want to risk their lives to leave.
Edit: Not sure about the HRA bit - which part in particular you are thinking of amending.
You may not have noticed but we have other priorities.
So we set up asylum processing centres in other countries. Obviously not those countries the people are fleeing as the governments tend to look unfavourably on that. But adjacent states like Jordan and Turkey for Syria. What you need to do is remove the hope people have that they will be able to get in by making a dangerous journey and instead give them a mechanism to seek asylum more safely. But doing one without the other just won't work.
That is transparent bollocks and the fact that Brexiters are advocating outsourcing our border policy so strongly really is a head-scratching phenomenon.
But it is funnier than the the near certainty that children will be drowning tonight.
Mind you, I could be wrong - "Their choice it was plain between drownin' in 'eaps an' bein' mopped by the screw"
Edit: - Not the aunt but a close connection nevertheless.