The Irony Thread

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

They are not asylum seekers if they come from France. They are illegal immigrants.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

You might ask yourself why they end up the UK when they were already in a perfectly good host country (France) which appears to be duty bound to give them asylum based on the rules.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

You might ask yourself why they end up the UK when they were already in a perfectly good host country (France) which appears to be duty bound to give them asylum based on the rules.

Right. That's not really answering the question though is it, and I get the impression you're hot on that.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

You might ask yourself why they end up the UK when they were already in a perfectly good host country (France) which appears to be duty bound to give them asylum based on the rules.

Right. That's not really answering the question though is it, and I get the impression you're hot on that.

It's pretty simple - I'm looking at from the point of view of who has the responsibility and whether they are discharging their responsibility. You're just trying to tow the 'oh isn't he a nasty Tory' line, which is about as predictable as the sunrise so I gave you a like for it.

Direct your moral outrage at France, not me.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

You might ask yourself why they end up the UK when they were already in a perfectly good host country (France) which appears to be duty bound to give them asylum based on the rules.

Right. That's not really answering the question though is it, and I get the impression you're hot on that.

I wasn't aware that he had a problem with asylum seekers tbh unless I missed it. He seemed to have grasped the regs pretty well.
As usual on here, illegal immigrants morph into asylum seekers.

veronese68

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Exactly

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Stevo_666

Rick, what would your view be if some of them are economic migrants?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Because the Dublin agreement is an agreement between EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

The irony is that the more the French facilitate this, the more illegal immigrants are going to head to France and try and reach the Calais area. This number will be way more than getting across the channel so France just creates more of a problem for itself in the medium turn

The only way the French will stop facilitating this movement is when there are capsizes and deaths that they have to deal with. With more people arriving, the pressure will increase and more risky journeys in poor weather will be attempted thus increasing the chances of this happening.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

Again, quoting what you aid above:
"Intl law says you have to accept an asylum claim from anybody who turns up, the Dublin Regulation says they have to be accepted by the first EU country they reach."

If the Dublin regulation says that, then if someone turns up on the shores of Southern England from France then France still has that responsibility and we can insist they fulfill that responsibility.

Secondly, why would anyone coming from France have a valid asylum claim? It was not a dangerous, impoverished country last time I looked.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Because the Dublin agreement is an agreement between EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

See my reply to SC above.

veronese68

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

My understanding is that's why France have had the holding centre near Calais, but once we are out of the EU they have no obligation to stop them leaving under international law. Some do escape the holding centres and try to get across, do the French willingly let this happen? That I couldn't tell you, but they were doing what was necessary according to the agreements that were in place, once we are out of the EU we have willingly left those agreements. This was all pointed out before the referendum, but we wanted control of our borders or something.

Stevo_666

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

My understanding is that's why France have had the holding centre near Calais, but once we are out of the EU they have no obligation to stop them leaving under international law. Some do escape the holding centres and try to get across, do the French willingly let this happen? That I couldn't tell you, but they were doing what was necessary according to the agreements that were in place, once we are out of the EU we have willingly left those agreements. This was all pointed out before the referendum, but we wanted control of our borders or something.

As mentioned above, why leave France when it;s a perfectly adequate host country. If they then leave that host country they are no longer asylum seekers as they already have asylum in France.

Also look at this situation. If these people are genuine asylum seekers but and they are given French or EU citizenship then they can go where they like in the EU. Until the end of this year they could simply come to the UK once they have EU citizenship.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Because the Dublin agreement is an agreement between EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

See my reply to SC above.

I saw that - which bit are you not understanding? The UK will not automatically be a Dublin agreement country so the EU countries will not have any obligation to take any asylum seekers back under that agreement.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

Again, quoting what you aid above:
"Intl law says you have to accept an asylum claim from anybody who turns up, the Dublin Regulation says they have to be accepted by the first EU country they reach."

If the Dublin regulation says that, then if someone turns up on the shores of Southern England from France then France still has that responsibility and we can insist they fulfill that responsibility.

Secondly, why would anyone coming from France have a valid asylum claim? It was not a dangerous, impoverished country last time I looked.

Surely admitting you were wrong would be easier than dissecting intl treaties and laws?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

Again, quoting what you aid above:
"Intl law says you have to accept an asylum claim from anybody who turns up, the Dublin Regulation says they have to be accepted by the first EU country they reach."

If the Dublin regulation says that, then if someone turns up on the shores of Southern England from France then France still has that responsibility and we can insist they fulfill that responsibility.

Secondly, why would anyone coming from France have a valid asylum claim? It was not a dangerous, impoverished country last time I looked.

Surely admitting you were wrong would be easier than dissecting intl treaties and laws?

Why do you think I'm wrong?

veronese68

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

My understanding is that's why France have had the holding centre near Calais, but once we are out of the EU they have no obligation to stop them leaving under international law. Some do escape the holding centres and try to get across, do the French willingly let this happen? That I couldn't tell you, but they were doing what was necessary according to the agreements that were in place, once we are out of the EU we have willingly left those agreements. This was all pointed out before the referendum, but we wanted control of our borders or something.

As mentioned above, why leave France when it;s a perfectly adequate host country. If they then leave that host country they are no longer asylum seekers as they already have asylum in France.

Also look at this situation. If these people are genuine asylum seekers but and they are given French or EU citizenship then they can go where they like in the EU. Until the end of this year they could simply come to the UK once they have EU citizenship.

They have passed through lots of countries that could be considered safe before they reach the EU, only the EU has this agreement the other countries aren't turning them round and sending them back either.
If a hypothetical asylum seeker goes through Europe gets on a boat but misses the British Isles and washes up in Newfoundland they won't be sending them back to France.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Because the Dublin agreement is an agreement between EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

See my reply to SC above.

I saw that - which bit are you not understanding? The UK will not automatically be a Dublin agreement country so the EU countries will not have any obligation to take any asylum seekers back under that agreement.

If France etc are party to the Dublin agreement than they must host those who arrive in their country. Or are you saying they can just ignore that obligation and palm them off in our direction?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

Because the Dublin agreement is an agreement between EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

See my reply to SC above.

I saw that - which bit are you not understanding? The UK will not automatically be a Dublin agreement country so the EU countries will not have any obligation to take any asylum seekers back under that agreement.

If France etc are party to the Dublin agreement than they must host those who arrive in their country. Or are you saying they can just ignore that obligation and palm them off in our direction?

Exactly that - if we don't join the Dublin agreement after we leave, we lose the right to return any asylum seekers to any EU country they have passed through on their way to the UK.

kingstongraham

What may be more interesting is that more asylum seekers get transferred TO the UK than from the UK under the Dublin agreement. The numbers are so small though, it's not worth all the fuss.

veronese68

kingstongraham said:

What may be more interesting is that more asylum seekers get transferred TO the UK than from the UK under the Dublin agreement. The numbers are so small though, it's not worth all the fuss.

Was Yaxley Lennon one of them?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

Again, quoting what you aid above:
"Intl law says you have to accept an asylum claim from anybody who turns up, the Dublin Regulation says they have to be accepted by the first EU country they reach."

If the Dublin regulation says that, then if someone turns up on the shores of Southern England from France then France still has that responsibility and we can insist they fulfill that responsibility.

Secondly, why would anyone coming from France have a valid asylum claim? It was not a dangerous, impoverished country last time I looked.

Surely admitting you were wrong would be easier than dissecting intl treaties and laws?

Why do you think I'm wrong?

I know you are wrong.

If you are looking for somebody to sea lion then I’m oot

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What's your problem with people arriving to the UK as asylum seekers, Stevo?

You might ask yourself why they end up the UK when they were already in a perfectly good host country (France) which appears to be duty bound to give them asylum based on the rules.

Right. That's not really answering the question though is it, and I get the impression you're hot on that.

I wasn't aware that he had a problem with asylum seekers tbh unless I missed it. He seemed to have grasped the regs pretty well.
As usual on here, illegal immigrants morph into asylum seekers.

How do you know they're illegal?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problem

Given the responsibility of the first EU country they land in to look after them, how would it be different if we are an EU member?

The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.

I see the problem - that responsibility is only to other EU members.

As an EU member we can send them back to France. As a non-EU member intl law takes over and we have to accept them.

The upside is that if somebody clung to the underside of a plane then fled to France then they could no longer make us accept them back.

Again, quoting what you aid above:
"Intl law says you have to accept an asylum claim from anybody who turns up, the Dublin Regulation says they have to be accepted by the first EU country they reach."

If the Dublin regulation says that, then if someone turns up on the shores of Southern England from France then France still has that responsibility and we can insist they fulfill that responsibility.

Secondly, why would anyone coming from France have a valid asylum claim? It was not a dangerous, impoverished country last time I looked.

Surely admitting you were wrong would be easier than dissecting intl treaties and laws?

Why do you think I'm wrong?

I know you are wrong.

If you are looking for somebody to sea lion then I’m oot

So I'm wrong because you know I'm wrong? Love the logic, it's hard to refute

I'll take that as you can't explain why you think I'm wrong and you're taking your ball home.

Stevo_666

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

My understanding is that's why France have had the holding centre near Calais, but once we are out of the EU they have no obligation to stop them leaving under international law. Some do escape the holding centres and try to get across, do the French willingly let this happen? That I couldn't tell you, but they were doing what was necessary according to the agreements that were in place, once we are out of the EU we have willingly left those agreements. This was all pointed out before the referendum, but we wanted control of our borders or something.

As mentioned above, why leave France when it;s a perfectly adequate host country. If they then leave that host country they are no longer asylum seekers as they already have asylum in France.

Also look at this situation. If these people are genuine asylum seekers but and they are given French or EU citizenship then they can go where they like in the EU. Until the end of this year they could simply come to the UK once they have EU citizenship.

They have passed through lots of countries that could be considered safe before they reach the EU, only the EU has this agreement the other countries aren't turning them round and sending them back either.
If a hypothetical asylum seeker goes through Europe gets on a boat but misses the British Isles and washes up in Newfoundland they won't be sending them back to France.

They're unlikely to have washed up in France first. If this EU agreement was worth anything the French would have sent them back to the EU country that arrived from.

My original point was that France aren't doing their bit, regardless of the pointless 'oh it would be so much better if we were still in the EU' line towed by some on here. And my point still stands.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

What may be more interesting is that more asylum seekers get transferred TO the UK than from the UK under the Dublin agreement. The numbers are so small though, it's not worth all the fuss.

That's the relevant point. The Dublin agreement has very little impact. It's odd to think that being in or out of the EU will make much difference.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

veronese68 said:

So if we are not in the EU we are bound by international law rather than EU law, so we would have to accept them here as there is no legal basis for our returning them to an EU country. Although this may be dependent on exactly what the agreements with France say.

The migrants are coming from France so if they came to France first then they are France's responsibility (or if they can via another EU country to France then its somebody else's responsibility but not ours). So France (or another EU country) should be accepting them.

If they came direct from a non-EU country then looks like its our responsibility, but realistically how many can get direct to the UK from a non-EU country in an overloaded rubber dinghy? Can't be that many trying to get here from Norway.

My understanding is that's why France have had the holding centre near Calais, but once we are out of the EU they have no obligation to stop them leaving under international law. Some do escape the holding centres and try to get across, do the French willingly let this happen? That I couldn't tell you, but they were doing what was necessary according to the agreements that were in place, once we are out of the EU we have willingly left those agreements. This was all pointed out before the referendum, but we wanted control of our borders or something.

As mentioned above, why leave France when it;s a perfectly adequate host country. If they then leave that host country they are no longer asylum seekers as they already have asylum in France.

Also look at this situation. If these people are genuine asylum seekers but and they are given French or EU citizenship then they can go where they like in the EU. Until the end of this year they could simply come to the UK once they have EU citizenship.

They have passed through lots of countries that could be considered safe before they reach the EU, only the EU has this agreement the other countries aren't turning them round and sending them back either.
If a hypothetical asylum seeker goes through Europe gets on a boat but misses the British Isles and washes up in Newfoundland they won't be sending them back to France.

They're unlikely to have washed up in France first. If this EU agreement was worth anything the French would have sent them back to the EU country that arrived from.

My original point was that France aren't doing their bit, regardless of the pointless 'oh it would be so much better if we were stil in the EU' line towed by some on here. And my point still stands.

What are the numbers of asylum seekers processed in France and the UK?