The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Absolutely on that I agree. But if we are going to take more we should do so on the merit of cases that need our support and not on the merit of who is fit and healthy and brave and stupid enough to cross the Channel on a dinghy.
Only helping those who make it here on their own right is like suggesting that we should do more to help those financially struggling then setting up a processing centre in the central reservation of a motorway and saying anyone who walks across the motorway and makes it alive to the processing centre will be given financial support.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Yeah this is what confuses me, as a German or a French person I'd be mighty pissed off that the UK take bugger all refugees.
The proposal by Cameron to setup refugee camps in the various regions, take vetted & verified refugees from there directly & crack down on the people smugglers was, in my view -
- logical - humane - practical
I tend to agree. But this does not mean those that have got here have no right to claim. They do.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
I was going to comment that I've met plenty of arrogant good scientists, but then reflected that - if truly good - they're not actually arrogant, just correct about their abilities
So I think @Nigelb is probably right, but because when scientists become arrogant they cease to be good scientists - good scientists should question everything, including (and perhaps particularly), their own knowledge and abilities.
The truly great scientists aren't arrogant in my experience. When I was studying for my doctorate I met quite a few of the big names of theoretical particles physics of the time, including spending a couple of weeks working with one of the very greatest of all, Sheldon Glashow. It was really striking how open and approachable the top scientists were - self-confident, yes, and enthusiastic, but remarkably generous with their time and patience for a lowly post-grad. It tended to be the ones who were never going to be great achievers who were unhelpful and arrogant.
I think something similar may apply to most walks of life - including politicians. Probably that's because the top ones don't have anything to prove, and also they know how much luck there is in everything.
Contrary to popular belief, almost all top scientists are good communicators. There are of course a few who get to the top by being incredibly good and focussed, and simply rely on other scientists to publicise their work. But the typical top scientist has to be successful at writing interesting (for ther peers) scientific papers, being invited to conferences which means giving consistently interesting talks, being sucessful at writing grant applications to pay for the post docs who help you with your best research and to buy you out of teaching. Most will also be good at playing the internal uni politics game. Appearance on popular science programs like the Infinite Monkey Cage or articles in the New Scientist/newspapers are great for reputation and promotion. Oh and they also work incredibly long hours.
When you take all of this into consideration, it is not so surprising that most top scientists are pleasant and approachable, because it is an characteristic which has helped them get to the top.
Yes, I think that's right. Where top scientists may be weaker in my experience is in lecturing, because they don't understand what middle-ability students find difficult - everything they say in a lecture to undergraduates is equally trivial to them, so they don't slow down for the bits that newcomers find harder. When I studied maths I learned to appreciate the middle-flyers!
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
They can. But their actions in leaving France were still illegal.
- I might be wrong but, if Warren is the VP pick, doesn't the current MA Governor who is a Republican get to pick her replacement (although there are questions about whether he will stay in the party)?
- The ally who advised Kamala Harris to not take the VP slot was Willie Brown, her old "mentor". That might carry a lot of weight with Harris. He suggested Harris could do far more as AG;
- the two frontrunners (Rice and Harris) each bring with them risks for Biden namely (1) controversies of their own (2) they risk accentuating controversies around Biden himself (Harris because of her record on crime which risks focusing attention on Biden's role in crime bills which may alienate black voters; Rice because it will look like an Obama 2.0 admin).
Perhaps most importantly, both are also natural picks for high profile posts that can be offered as compensation (Harris AG / Rice SoS). That also goes for Warren (Treasury Sec) and, arguably, Duckworth (Defence);
- looking at the NY Times article, which looks well informed, 8 candidates get mentioned as in contention - Harris, Rice, Warren, Whitmer, Duckworth, Demings, Bass and Lujan Grisham. If you want a value bet, you can get Lujan Grisham at 130 on Betfair now. That is not bad odds for what looks like a 1 in 8 chance *
* for disclosure, I recommended Lujan Grisham on here under MrEd. My bloody log in is not working so I have had to go back to my old nom de plume...
You're right that the GOP MA Governor would pick Warren's successor although the special (by) election must be within 160 days of the vacancy so they may be short-lived. Albeit always some risk with a special election that it'll be lost - Obama lost a Senate special election in MA in the first year of his Presidency.
I think Warren has simply dropped off the radar anyway - Biden has shown absolutely no indication that appeasing the left of the party is high on his list of priorities with the VP choice (he'll do it in policy terms).
I think it is hugely unlikely Biden will look beyond the five in OGH's chart in the article, and fairly unlikely he'll go beyond the big two. I see the case for Grisham but, unlike McCain in 2008, Biden isn't in a position where he needs to shake up the race massively. Palin did shake up the race but quickly came unstuck when subjected to scrutiny. A shaky VP pick is a particular problem for Biden too, as he's particularly old and the VP pick has a realistic chance of the Presidency.
Biden's team have made sure the big names being considered are out there for discussion precisely so big problems can be exposed - and Karen Bass came unstuck on that basis over Cuba. Other big contenders have some flaws (e.g. Harris attacked Biden on the campaign trail, Rice has comments over Benghazi) but these don't feel disqualifying - everyone with a weighty CV has such points.
On Rice or Harris not wanting it, no doubt if they aren't picked their proxies will let it be known they had doubts about it all along. But the VP will really be in pole position for the Presidency whereas the AG or SoS won't, so it'd be crazy not to go for it if they have those ambitions - which we know Harris has, and Rice probably has.
I agree that is right about Warren and also re Harris having the ambition to want to be President too (ditto fro Rice). I'm not sure about big names being thrown out by Biden to test the appetite - in Bass' case, she was being pushed by Pelosi and others in Congress and I suspect the Biden camp opened her up in the knowledge her views would get known quickly.
Re Grisham, she's been seen to have done well with CV in NM, boosting testing. She's not a Palin for sure. But she is low profile.
Final point - one thing that makes me think it won't be one of the top two is Biden's continual putting back the choice. If it was down to just two, it would be a relatively easy decision. The fact he saw Whitmer on August 2nd suggests he felt the need to open the field.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So, how does that contradict anything I said. It does not say they cannot claim asylum here.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
But let's take that a step further. It's pretty unlikely that they hopped magically from Syria to France- look at the map.
So if the rule really were "refugees must stop in the first safe country that they land in" then Turkey would be absolutely stiffed. And to an extent they are, because a lot of refugees do stop there. But the fact that there are Syrian refugees in France shows that the so-called rule isn't.
So then we come back to the bottom line that Britain doesn't take that many refugees, certainly compared with other large countries in Europe.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
They can. But their actions in leaving France were still illegal.
It's "illegal" for them to enter France as well - but if they successfully claim asylum they haven't broken the law.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
But let's take that a step further. It's pretty unlikely that they hopped magically from Syria to France- look at the map.
So if the rule really were "refugees must stop in the first safe country that they land in" then Turkey would be absolutely stiffed. And to an extent they are, because a lot of refugees do stop there. But the fact that there are Syrian refugees in France shows that the so-called rule isn't.
So then we come back to the bottom line that Britain doesn't take that many refugees, certainly compared with other large countries in Europe.
MOST of them stop in Turkey, do they not?
Isn't this why this whole thing started, Turkey got fed up.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So, how does that contradict anything I said. It does not say they cannot claim asylum here.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
You were asking for evidence that Amnesty is wrong. Here it is.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So, how does that contradict anything I said. It does not say they cannot claim asylum here.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
You were asking for evidence that Amnesty is wrong. Here it is.
It didn't disprove what Amnesty said. Your quote doesn't support your point.
Only a matter of time till they load up the old Brownings and send a Spit on a 'symbolic' strafing run in the channel (whether live rounds are to be used tbc with Dom an hour beforehand).
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Yeah this is what confuses me, as a German or a French person I'd be mighty pissed off that the UK take bugger all refugees.
The proposal by Cameron to setup refugee camps in the various regions, take vetted & verified refugees from there directly & crack down on the people smugglers was, in my view -
- logical - humane - practical
100% agreed.
For more humane than some Darwinian acceptance of only those who get here on their own back. Or on a dinghy.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
Then they will continue attempting these dangerous trips.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So, how does that contradict anything I said. It does not say they cannot claim asylum here.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
Pay more attention to what people are writing not what you think they are. Nobody is saying they can not.
Farage is probably thinking long and hard about making some kind of a return.
Yes. Nigel. For weeks he's been going out there rain or shine on his own little boat, filming these refugees, railing about it, telling anybody who would listen that it's a total scandal and is making a mockery of "take back control", and now it's getting traction. He'll be thinking "ahead of the game and finger on the pulse", just like always on anything to do with immigration, and politically speaking "I've still got it." He'll be buzzing.
Racing certainty that the Question Time guest bookers are currently digging out that stained old beer mat with Nigel's mobile number on it.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The legal point being made is that the inaccurate claim made by the Home Secretary (and others) is that the refugee is required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
Then they will continue attempting these dangerous trips.
And we should do our best to stop the trips.
But people will still come here illegally, that is the reality. If it's 1 or 1000, they're still a genuine refugee in need of our help.
I completely, 100% agree with what's been said about stopping the gangs and the trips in the first place.
And we should also massively increase the amount of refugees we take, because we don't pull our weight at all. But I somehow doubt the Tory Party will go for that line.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
But let's take that a step further. It's pretty unlikely that they hopped magically from Syria to France- look at the map.
So if the rule really were "refugees must stop in the first safe country that they land in" then Turkey would be absolutely stiffed. And to an extent they are, because a lot of refugees do stop there. But the fact that there are Syrian refugees in France shows that the so-called rule isn't.
So then we come back to the bottom line that Britain doesn't take that many refugees, certainly compared with other large countries in Europe.
Which is why the humane thing to do is to take genuine refugees based on some sort of merit system directly from Turkey.
Darwinian encouragement of getting people to continue their journey past Turkey and taking people based on who was fittest to make it to Kent by themselves rather than who needs asylum ... There is no moral argument for that which I can see.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Yeah this is what confuses me, as a German or a French person I'd be mighty pissed off that the UK take bugger all refugees.
The proposal by Cameron to setup refugee camps in the various regions, take vetted & verified refugees from there directly & crack down on the people smugglers was, in my view -
- logical - humane - practical
100% agreed.
For more humane than some Darwinian acceptance of only those who get here on their own back. Or on a dinghy.
Anyone who gets a RIB across the Channel at night is either a very good seaman, or needs to pick lottery numbers for me.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The legal point being made is that the inaccurate claim made by the Home Secretary (and others) is that the refugee is required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
Superb post - and far more articulate than me, as usual.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who live in peace and freedom in France.
Only a matter of time till they load up the old Brownings and send a Spit on a 'symbolic' strafing run in the channel (whether live rounds are to be used tbc with Dom an hour beforehand).
The legend THANK U NHS which currently graces those storied elliptical wings will be replaced with just FUCK OFF.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
Then they will continue attempting these dangerous trips.
And we should do our best to stop the trips.
But people will still come here illegally, that is the reality. If it's 1 or 1000, they're still a genuine refugee in need of our help.
I completely, 100% agree with what's been said about stopping the gangs and the trips in the first place.
And we should also massively increase the amount of refugees we take, because we don't pull our weight at all. But I somehow doubt the Tory Party will go for that line.
Why doesn't Labour put that last policy in their manifesto and see how well it does with the public? Oh wait, they already did...
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The legal point being made is that the inaccurate claim made by the Home Secretary (and others) is that the refugee is required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
The need for some folk to portray immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers as somehow morally deficient is psychologically interesting.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
I don't attack Turkey because Turkey are taking far more than their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees who are doing the right thing are stopping there.
I think we should be taking MORE refugees direct from Turkey. I think all safe nations should be trying to do so. I think that's the humane, moral and right thing to do.
What about that do you disagree with?
Why should an asylum seeker be punished for stopping at Turkey while one that makes a dangerous crossing all the way to Kent should be rewarded? How is that fair?
This reminds me of a scene in The Americans where Oleg says, "We have the smartest scientists in the world but no money. Believe me, this isn't a good combination."
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Not necessarily. You can do parallel activities that would normally be serial for cost reasons.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The legal point being made is that the inaccurate claim made by the Home Secretary (and others) is that the refugee is required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
The need for some folk to portray immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers as somehow morally deficient is psychologically interesting.
It's really shocking, they're not even treated as people by some.
Look, I am totally in agreement with the idea that the trips are dangerous, the trips are bad, they shouldn't happen. Absolutely 100% agree, we should stop them. I don't think we can stop them - but we should try, for the sake of saving lives.
But then I also think we should be taking more refugees. If we stop the trips that are made (which would be a good thing for human life), we need to take more refugees to compensate. And then even more again as we do not pull our weight anyway.
I somehow doubt the second point is very popular. But it's the right thing to do.
But that's the point, these people are not really arguing from a moral POV, it's just sly anti-immigrant/anti-refugeee sentiment.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
I don't attack Turkey because Turkey are taking far more than their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees who are doing the right thing are stopping there.
I think we should be taking MORE refugees direct from Turkey. I think all safe nations should be trying to do so. I think that's the humane, moral and right thing to do.
What about that do you disagree with?
Why should an asylum seeker be punished for stopping at Turkey while one that makes a dangerous crossing all the way to Kent should be rewarded? How is that fair?
But we don't take our fair share. So do you think we should take more, or not?
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
But let's take that a step further. It's pretty unlikely that they hopped magically from Syria to France- look at the map.
So if the rule really were "refugees must stop in the first safe country that they land in" then Turkey would be absolutely stiffed. And to an extent they are, because a lot of refugees do stop there. But the fact that there are Syrian refugees in France shows that the so-called rule isn't.
So then we come back to the bottom line that Britain doesn't take that many refugees, certainly compared with other large countries in Europe.
MOST of them stop in Turkey, do they not?
Isn't this why this whole thing started, Turkey got fed up.
No. Turkey are doing the right thing and supporting far more than they should. There are many things to attack Turkey for, the authoritarianism and religious zealotry and antidemocratic regime there is worrying.
But what got this whole thing started was some thought they could get an economically better life if they continued their journey past Turkey and they were rewarded for doing so. That was not healthy or the right thing to do.
The right thing to do would be to exchange with Turkey those who have illegally continued past there while taking in more direct from Turkey. That would send a signal that we will take those who need our help ... Rather than those who can help themselves. That is humane.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
When they're fleeing wars, yes we do. As per agreements we have signed.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
I don't attack Turkey because Turkey are taking far more than their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees who are doing the right thing are stopping there.
I think we should be taking MORE refugees direct from Turkey. I think all safe nations should be trying to do so. I think that's the humane, moral and right thing to do.
What about that do you disagree with?
Why should an asylum seeker be punished for stopping at Turkey while one that makes a dangerous crossing all the way to Kent should be rewarded? How is that fair?
But we don't take our fair share. So do you think we should take more, or not?
Yes I think we should take more, direct from front line countries like Turkey not from dinghies. We should fly them in safe and direct.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
Could you please define
- peaceful - free - prosperous
This whole debate is ridiculous. They claim asylum here, they have a legal right to. Don't like it, too bad, it's the law.
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Not necessarily. You can do parallel activities that would normally be serial for cost reasons.
So the Oxford vaccine will be tested fully to pre covid standards? I am surprised by that, the impact of covid is such that cutting some corners seems a worthwhile risk to take.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
When they're fleeing wars, yes we do. As per agreements we have signed.
Absolutely. So people that fled wars to Turkey we should be trying to help and taking our fair share of. We should fly them safely from Ankara etc direct to London etc. Safe and free.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
That's not what I said. I specifically said someone could illegally come here and still be a genuine refugee. But they're not a genuine refugee from France.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
A load of utter nonsense.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
I don't attack Turkey because Turkey are taking far more than their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees who are doing the right thing are stopping there.
I think we should be taking MORE refugees direct from Turkey. I think all safe nations should be trying to do so. I think that's the humane, moral and right thing to do.
What about that do you disagree with?
Why should an asylum seeker be punished for stopping at Turkey while one that makes a dangerous crossing all the way to Kent should be rewarded? How is that fair?
But we don't take our fair share. So do you think we should take more, or not?
Yes I think we should take more, direct from front line countries like Turkey not from dinghies. We should fly them in safe and direct.
Is that objectionable to you?
No, it's right we take more. At least double the amount we do now.
Now why don't you let Johnson know? He's spent the last week attacking these people and done nothing in regards to taking more refugees in general. Why not?
Is it because publicly it is unpopular? I suspect so.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
That quote is from the 1951 convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So, how does that contradict anything I said. It does not say they cannot claim asylum here.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
You were asking for evidence that Amnesty is wrong. Here it is.
It didn't disprove what Amnesty said. Your quote doesn't support your point.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
When they're fleeing wars, yes we do. As per agreements we have signed.
Absolutely. So people that fled wars to Turkey we should be trying to help and taking our fair share of. We should fly them safely from Ankara etc direct to London etc. Safe and free.
People fleeing France is another matter.
They're not fleeing France, they're freeing Syria (for example).
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Not necessarily. You can do parallel activities that would normally be serial for cost reasons.
So the Oxford vaccine will be tested fully to pre covid standards? I am surprised by that, the impact of covid is such that cutting some corners seems a worthwhile risk to take.
Yes it will be. For good reason.
It will be done so quicker and at much greater cost.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
Could you please define
- peaceful - free - prosperous
This whole debate is ridiculous. They claim asylum here, they have a legal right to. Don't like it, too bad, it's the law.
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
So do the Tories here support that?
Yes!
We should take them direct from the frontline first safe countries like Turkey.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
Could you please define
- peaceful - free - prosperous
This whole debate is ridiculous. They claim asylum here, they have a legal right to. Don't like it, too bad, it's the law.
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
So do the Tories here support that?
Yes!
We should take them direct from the frontline first safe countries like Turkey.
It's odd your leader isn't on TV saying it then. He's spent the last week just vilifying immigrants.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
When they're fleeing wars, yes we do. As per agreements we have signed.
Absolutely. So people that fled wars to Turkey we should be trying to help and taking our fair share of. We should fly them safely from Ankara etc direct to London etc. Safe and free.
People fleeing France is another matter.
They're not fleeing France, they're freeing Syria (for example).
If they're in France, then by definition they have already fled Syria. They are no longer 'fleeing' it in any normal sense of the English language.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Not necessarily. You can do parallel activities that would normally be serial for cost reasons.
So the Oxford vaccine will be tested fully to pre covid standards? I am surprised by that, the impact of covid is such that cutting some corners seems a worthwhile risk to take.
No I wasn't saying that. I haven't a clue to be honest. Just aware that some normally serial activities are being done in parallel to save time, but at the risk of wasted costs.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
Additionally, the implication is that Trump believes Comey, Clapper and Brennan are somehow sleazier and less trustworthy than Putin - who thinks nothing of assassinating dissidents on foreign soil in horrifying ways just for starters. Even if you buy any of Trump's whines about former senior individuals in the US intelligence services being mean to him, that is just an utterly incredible suggestion.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
We should prioritise refugees fleeing directly from oppression. Eg those fleeing Hong Kong, or from Syria into Turkey etc.
Those fleeing France should be bottom priority for any humanitarian concerns.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
One slight issue I have with that - and someone may have the answer - is why we necessarily need to establish they are safe AND effective. Safe I get. But why necessarily require proof of effectiveness in every case pre-mass roll out? If it's proven safe and there's, say, an 80% chance of effectiveness, why not roll out in parallel with effectiveness trials at least in cases like Covid where the logistics of mass vaccination worldwide in a short period are tricky?
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
Could you please define
- peaceful - free - prosperous
This whole debate is ridiculous. They claim asylum here, they have a legal right to. Don't like it, too bad, it's the law.
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
So do the Tories here support that?
Yes!
We should take them direct from the frontline first safe countries like Turkey.
It's odd your leader isn't on TV saying it then. He's spent the last week just vilifying immigrants.
It’s one thing David Cameron got right in his time in Downing Street.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don;t think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
Could you please define
- peaceful - free - prosperous
This whole debate is ridiculous. They claim asylum here, they have a legal right to. Don't like it, too bad, it's the law.
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
So do the Tories here support that?
Yes!
We should take them direct from the frontline first safe countries like Turkey.
It's odd your leader isn't on TV saying it then. He's spent the last week just vilifying immigrants.
I'm not a loyalist. I don't stand by vilifying immigrants.
If we are to take more people in the priority should be those who need our help, eg from overcrowded refugee camps in Turkey ... Not those who don't need our help eg those who have made it safely on their own back to France already.
Do you disagree with me on that? Or do you see a moral case for prioritising and thus encourahing those who've made the journey themselves rather than those in genuine need?
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
I don't get as wound up by this as say Mr Farage, but would have no problem in a law passed that overturns ex parte Adimi. If you are fleeing for your life, you have satisfied that condition when you have escaped that jurisdiction that would harm you. Give asylum seekers the choice, and ofcourse they will go somewhere with free healhcare and an extensive social welfare safety net.
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Additionally, the implication is that Trump believes Comey, Clapper and Brennan are somehow sleazier and less trustworthy than Putin - who thinks nothing of assassinating dissidents on foreign soil in horrifying ways just for starters. Even if you buy any of Trump's whines about former senior individuals in the US intelligence services being mean to him, that is just an utterly incredible suggestion.
If Bolton is the dumbest person he met in government then Trump is clearly saying he is a terrible judge of character, as he invited Bolton over to the WH on many occasions to get his views on stuff before he became security advisor. As his book details at length, there were many attempts to find a slot for Bolton in the administration - but he held out for NSA or Sec of State.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
I normally respect Gove but the idea of Sturgeon attending Cabinet is absolutely insane.
Why would you support that? Why is "BoZo" a sleeper agent for rejecting it?
This kind of attitude is why the Scottish are now more and more likely to leave the UK.
What is wrong with the attitude?
Remember I actually think it's for the best if Scotland goes independent but whether you are a unionist or a nationalist it is insane to suggest that Sturgeon either could or should be bound by the UK governments Cabinet collective responsibility. And if she's not bound by collective responsibility as part of the Cabinet then she can't be a part of it.
So what do you suggest to make this work? Have Sturgeon in the cabinet but not bound to it? Or have Sturgeon compelled to be bound by Boris's decisions?
It's insane and doesn't meet the first bit of thinking about. I doubt Sturgeon would even want to be a part of Boris's Cabinet!
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
We could form a block of states within Europe, based around similar interests and strategic goals. We could implement policies that could effect the entire population of Europe.
I normally respect Gove but the idea of Sturgeon attending Cabinet is absolutely insane.
Why would you support that? Why is "BoZo" a sleeper agent for rejecting it?
This kind of attitude is why the Scottish are now more and more likely to leave the UK.
What is wrong with the attitude?
Remember I actually think it's for the best if Scotland goes independent but whether you are a unionist or a nationalist it is insane to suggest that Sturgeon either could or should be bound by the UK governments Cabinet collective responsibility. And if she's not bound by collective responsibility as part of the Cabinet then she can't be a part of it.
So what do you suggest to make this work? Have Sturgeon in the cabinet but not bound to it? Or have Sturgeon compelled to be bound by Boris's decisions?
It's insane and doesn't meet the first bit of thinking about. I doubt Sturgeon would even want to be a part of Boris's Cabinet!
Can anyone imagine Sturgeon inviting Boris to sit beside her at the Scottish Assembly?
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
The Russian Government is completely untrustworthy and criminal at every level.
There are many, clear evidenced reasons that no-one trusts them.
Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
Once again, PB lefties missing the forest for the trees, the issue isn't asylum seekers or refugees landing in Dover. It's that we get economic migrants coached by people smugglers to claim asylum and then disappear into the ether. This issue is also not isolated to the UK, it happens all across Europe because no country is willing to face up to this. If anyone believes that those arriving at Dover are all genuine refugees I also have a bridge to sell them.
The amount of successful asylum claims suggests you are wrong.
Additionally, the implication is that Trump believes Comey, Clapper and Brennan are somehow sleazier and less trustworthy than Putin - who thinks nothing of assassinating dissidents on foreign soil in horrifying ways just for starters. Even if you buy any of Trump's whines about former senior individuals in the US intelligence services being mean to him, that is just an utterly incredible suggestion.
If Bolton is the dumbest person he met in government then Trump is clearly saying he is a terrible judge of character, as he invited Bolton over to the WH on many occasions to get his views on stuff before he became security advisor. As his book details at length, there were many attempts to find a slot for Bolton in the administration - but he held out for NSA or Sec of State.
Yes, it's one of the things Trump says a lot about people he himself chose (Bolton, Cohen, Sessions, Scaramucci... the list goes on and on).
It's very interesting how little the point cuts through that Trump, by his own admission, must be an incredibly poor judge of character, which is a rather important flaw in his job.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
Which law says you claim in the first safe country you get to?
Article 31 says "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Directly that is the word written. France is not direct.
The UK case law - see ex parte Adimi in particular and a string of other cases - is that you are still "coming directly" to the intended destination even if you go through other places in transit.
I don't get as wound up by this as say Mr Farage, but would have no problem in a law passed that overturns ex parte Adimi. If you are fleeing for your life, you have satisfied that condition when you have escaped that jurisdiction that would harm you. Give asylum seekers the choice, and ofcourse they will go somewhere with free healhcare and an extensive social welfare safety net.
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
So with massive unemployment already starting and the economy in a mess, can Brexit supporters educate me how leaving our largest trading partner as this is happening, is going to create/rescue all those jobs?
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Arent all covid vaccines going to be tested by cutting corners? Isnt that how they plan to do it in 6-18 months instead of a few years?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
They are talking about accelerating the process by increasing the resources to review each stage. As opposed to the usual PutItInTheInTrayAndIllGetToIt thing.
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
Damn it! If I'd only known that we don't need to test vaccines to make sure that they are safe and effective I could have made a fortune in early April.
The Russians are saying they have tested it. Their standards may differ from ours, possibly for good reasons.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
The Russian Government is completely untrustworthy and criminal at every level.
There are many, clear evidenced reasons that no-one trusts them.
Sure, but it doesnt mean their vaccine is dangerous or ineffective. I doubt its particularly dangerous as that could be one of the few ways their government could collapse within the next few years. Why take the risk of that?
Just because they are untrustworthy doesnt mean everything they do is bad, and everything we do is good.
Comments
Only helping those who make it here on their own right is like suggesting that we should do more to help those financially struggling then setting up a processing centre in the central reservation of a motorway and saying anyone who walks across the motorway and makes it alive to the processing centre will be given financial support.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on
account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees
who, coming directly from a territory where their life or
freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization,
provided they present themselves without delay to the
authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or
presence.
https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1293134762543120389?s=20
Re Grisham, she's been seen to have done well with CV in NM, boosting testing. She's not a Palin for sure. But she is low profile.
Final point - one thing that makes me think it won't be one of the top two is Biden's continual putting back the choice. If it was down to just two, it would be a relatively easy decision. The fact he saw Whitmer on August 2nd suggests he felt the need to open the field.
I don't even see the debate tbh, they claim asylum here successfully all the time.
So if the rule really were "refugees must stop in the first safe country that they land in" then Turkey would be absolutely stiffed. And to an extent they are, because a lot of refugees do stop there. But the fact that there are Syrian refugees in France shows that the so-called rule isn't.
So then we come back to the bottom line that Britain doesn't take that many refugees, certainly compared with other large countries in Europe.
Isn't this why this whole thing started, Turkey got fed up.
And if we are going to do more to help genuine refugees which I think there is a moral case for then there is no moral case for doing so on a Darwinian basis of who makes it alive across the Channel in a dinghy.
Do you think having a Darwinian survival of the fittest process for accepting primarily healthy young males who have made it in dinghies is something to be encouraged or discouraged?
For more humane than some Darwinian acceptance of only those who get here on their own back. Or on a dinghy.
If you fled war, stopped in Turkey and then ended up in France (as a lot of them do), by your logic you're an economic migrant as soon as you left Turkey.
A lot of them left Turkey because they were forced to.
It's odd you don't attack Turkey though, why not?
I think if somebody arrives in the UK as a refugee and successfully claims asylum, it's irrelevant what happened in the past.
We should stop them coming here with those dangerous trips, I completely agree. But if they have got here already, they're genuine refugees and we should treat them with compassion.
Very simply, that's untrue. What there is is an EU agreement between members (the Dublin Regulation) that, administratively, says which state is responsible for processing the application. That's not a requirement on the asylum seeker. In theory, if a country knows that an applicant arrived in another country first, it can require that country to process the application. This is a very helpful regulation for the UK, Ireland or Denmark for example, but a real pain for countries on the Med who, in practice, aren't at all keen to apply it if they can possibly cast doubt and wriggle out of it.
But, crucially, this doesn't apply to the asylum seeker who does nothing illegal by claiming asylum in a country other than the first country of arrival. If the UK authorities have their asylum claim and the UK can't get another country to process it, the UK must do so. And they have to treat the asylum seeker as being from the country of origin - if they have no right to remain in another country, they are from the country of origin.
It's very dangerous of the Home Secretary to claim otherwise - whether that's because she's thick and doesn't understand the actual position, or deliberately to whip up hatred against asylum seekers by wrongly claiming arriving and claiming asylum is some kind of criminal act.
But people will still come here illegally, that is the reality. If it's 1 or 1000, they're still a genuine refugee in need of our help.
I completely, 100% agree with what's been said about stopping the gangs and the trips in the first place.
And we should also massively increase the amount of refugees we take, because we don't pull our weight at all. But I somehow doubt the Tory Party will go for that line.
Darwinian encouragement of getting people to continue their journey past Turkey and taking people based on who was fittest to make it to Kent by themselves rather than who needs asylum ... There is no moral argument for that which I can see.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who live in peace and freedom in France.
I think we should be taking MORE refugees direct from Turkey. I think all safe nations should be trying to do so. I think that's the humane, moral and right thing to do.
What about that do you disagree with?
Why should an asylum seeker be punished for stopping at Turkey while one that makes a dangerous crossing all the way to Kent should be rewarded? How is that fair?
I dont see why there would be a global consensus on exactly how many corners can be cut, it will depend on risk appetite and how big the covid problem is locally.
Look, I am totally in agreement with the idea that the trips are dangerous, the trips are bad, they shouldn't happen. Absolutely 100% agree, we should stop them. I don't think we can stop them - but we should try, for the sake of saving lives.
But then I also think we should be taking more refugees. If we stop the trips that are made (which would be a good thing for human life), we need to take more refugees to compensate. And then even more again as we do not pull our weight anyway.
I somehow doubt the second point is very popular. But it's the right thing to do.
But that's the point, these people are not really arguing from a moral POV, it's just sly anti-immigrant/anti-refugeee sentiment.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293151453029322753?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293151454069391360?s=20
But what got this whole thing started was some thought they could get an economically better life if they continued their journey past Turkey and they were rewarded for doing so. That was not healthy or the right thing to do.
The right thing to do would be to exchange with Turkey those who have illegally continued past there while taking in more direct from Turkey. That would send a signal that we will take those who need our help ... Rather than those who can help themselves. That is humane.
- peaceful
- free
- prosperous
Is that objectionable to you?
If the Tory Party stood up tomorrow and said they would do everything they could to stop the crossings and we would double our intake of refugees, I would give them a round of applause.
So do the Tories here support that?
That is different to missing out of shortening the actual trials.
People fleeing France is another matter.
Now why don't you let Johnson know? He's spent the last week attacking these people and done nothing in regards to taking more refugees in general. Why not?
Is it because publicly it is unpopular? I suspect so.
But it's the right thing to do.
https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1292938282402226178?s=20
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1293139451519078401?s=20
It will be done so quicker and at much greater cost.
We should take them direct from the frontline first safe countries like Turkey.
For goodness sake, these people should not be able to be challenged!
If Rowan Atkinson is right we'll soon be taking prisoners of conscience fleeing persecution from Scotland
Those fleeing France should be bottom priority for any humanitarian concerns.
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1293156091505844224
If we are to take more people in the priority should be those who need our help, eg from overcrowded refugee camps in Turkey ... Not those who don't need our help eg those who have made it safely on their own back to France already.
Do you disagree with me on that? Or do you see a moral case for prioritising and thus encourahing those who've made the journey themselves rather than those in genuine need?
'UKIP MEP David Coburn apologises for Abu Hamza comment'
https://tinyurl.com/yyth4x6n
Why would you support that? Why is "BoZo" a sleeper agent for rejecting it?
In an ideal world, there would be a functioning agency that worked out quotas to all safe countries - and dispatched those asylum seekers there. With sanctions on those countries who refused. They would also send back to their country of origin those who were found to be economic migrants. That true asylum seekers have been so adversely affected by those who queue-barge to get here is a good reason to treat them harshly, in my book.
Would I be more confident in the UK process than the Russian one, yes and by a reasonable margin, but not to the extent of blindly mocking the Russian one without expert knowledge.
Given the Uk has some of the highest death rates from this disease globally it is curious how disdainful we are of different approaches in different countries.
Nice blasphemy law you got there. At least its only a few months in jail for questioning the prophet though, probably.
No stoning yet.
He has seen the numbers and the numbers ain't good.
We are fucked.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Remember I actually think it's for the best if Scotland goes independent but whether you are a unionist or a nationalist it is insane to suggest that Sturgeon either could or should be bound by the UK governments Cabinet collective responsibility. And if she's not bound by collective responsibility as part of the Cabinet then she can't be a part of it.
So what do you suggest to make this work? Have Sturgeon in the cabinet but not bound to it? Or have Sturgeon compelled to be bound by Boris's decisions?
It's insane and doesn't meet the first bit of thinking about. I doubt Sturgeon would even want to be a part of Boris's Cabinet!
Something of a union type arrangement.
European Union
There are many, clear evidenced reasons that no-one trusts them.
It's very interesting how little the point cuts through that Trump, by his own admission, must be an incredibly poor judge of character, which is a rather important flaw in his job.
The Japanese trade deal is a fraction of a percent of the impact the EU has, presumably you have 10s of those lined up?
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Just because they are untrustworthy doesnt mean everything they do is bad, and everything we do is good.