The Irony Thread

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

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?

You are quite right, their status is unknown until they are processed.
But I am willing to hazard a guess that not many people jump ashore off lilos at Dover or leap out of holiday makers roof top boxes with the relevant paperwork all in order.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

You are quite right, their status is unknown until they are processed.
But I am willing to hazard a guess that not many people jump ashore off lilos at Dover or leap out of holiday makers roof top boxes with the relevant paperwork all in order.

No, they're likely Asylum seekers.

The idea they have to seek asylum in the first safe place they get to is nonsense both according to the UN convention and UK case law.

rick_chasey

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

ballysmate

So all those people waiting to cross the Channel are entitled to asylum?

Don't get buying any bridges.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

At least these mythical right ringers don't go in for sweeping leftiebollox generalisations

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

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?

You tell me.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

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.

As I was saying above.

Some people seem to think this is the Eurobollox thread. Not that it makes any difference as we've left. Is that irony?

ballysmate

There must be some mistake surely. People persecuted in their homelands, travel across the land of milk and honey, known on here as the EU, in order to risk their lives to get to racist Britain?
Can't be right.

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

There must be some mistake surely. People persecuted in their homelands, travel across the land of milk and honey, known on here as the EU, in order to risk their lives to get to racist Britain?
Can't be right.

Irrelevant but good distraction

Stevo_666

Stevo_666 said:

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

Ironically after moaning that I haven't aswered your question, you haven't answered my question above. Care to comment @rick_chasey ?

Unfortunately I'm not expecting an answer before I can say 'stinking hypocrite'

rick_chasey

If it was up to me I’d have an open door policy.

But that’s not ironic.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

There must be some mistake surely. People persecuted in their homelands, travel across the land of milk and honey, known on here as the EU, in order to risk their lives to get to racist Britain?
Can't be right.

Irrelevant but good distraction

Not irrelevant at all. Why not stop once you have asylum in the wonderful EU? Any further movement once you have reached a safe, welcoming and reasonably well off country is then just being picky about where you have asylum.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

Oh relax. I’m just trying to keep it on topic.

ballysmate

Unless of course the grass is greener this side of the Channel?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

Oh relax. I’m just trying to keep it on topic.

You're back. Open door policy - very practical.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

There must be some mistake surely. People persecuted in their homelands, travel across the land of milk and honey, known on here as the EU, in order to risk their lives to get to racist Britain?
Can't be right.

Irrelevant but good distraction

Not irrelevant at all. Why not stop once you have asylum in the wonderful EU? Any further movement once you have reached a safe, welcoming and reasonably well off country is then just being picky about where you have asylum.

You should write to Boris, The Times reckons he thinks he needs a new agreement after December 31st

You don’t know it but you are arguing for the system that is in place for EU members.

rick_chasey

But I did?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

There must be some mistake surely. People persecuted in their homelands, travel across the land of milk and honey, known on here as the EU, in order to risk their lives to get to racist Britain?
Can't be right.

Irrelevant but good distraction

Not irrelevant at all. Why not stop once you have asylum in the wonderful EU? Any further movement once you have reached a safe, welcoming and reasonably well off country is then just being picky about where you have asylum.

You should write to Boris, The Times reckons he thinks he needs a new agreement after December 31st

You don’t know it but you are arguing for the system that is in place for EU members.

Do you honestly not understand that rather basic point?

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

Oh relax. I’m just trying to keep it on topic.

You're back. Open door policy - very practical.

Would an open door policy have meant that we would have had to leave the EU? An open door policy in one country plus freedom of movement...
Yep, I get the irony.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

If it was up to me I’d have an open door policy.

But that’s not ironic.

No, it's just stupid.

This is a very small, already ridiculously overcrowded, island.

Unless your intention is to turn the UK into one enormous internment camp, before shoving off to live in the Netherlands.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Given it's the irony thread, I guess it's worth pointing out lots of right wingers want the Dunkirk spirit - you know, fleeing the enemy by sailing across the channel in small craft in an improvised fashion - but don't like it when it's brown people.

I must have missed the post where anyone of whichever polical persuasion mentioned the "Dunkirk Spirit".
Would be ridiculous.
Got a link?

Oh relax. I’m just trying to keep it on topic.

You're back. Open door policy - very practical.

Would an open door policy have meant that we would have had to leave the EU? An open door policy in one country plus freedom of movement...
Yep, I get the irony.

Don’t think so no.

Stevo_666

blazing_saddles said:

rick_chasey said:

If it was up to me I’d have an open door policy.

But that’s not ironic.

No, it's just stupid.

This is a very small, already ridiculously overcrowded, island.

Unless your intention is to turn the UK into one enormous internment camp, before shoving off to live in the Netherlands.

We should let the EU fulfil that role since they're so generous and welcoming. Merkel had a go a few years ago when she let in a large number of Syrian refugees and Germany now has a sizeable AfD representation in its parliament. Not a good move...

There is definitely irony there.

rjsterry

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.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Stevo_666

rjsterry 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.

If they arrive in the UK/UK waters and claim asylum then they will be our problem after 31/12/20. There will be no returning them to anywhere unless their asylum claim fails and their previous home is one deemed safe. When claiming asylum within the EU they must do so in the first EU country in which they arrive, but outside that it's just wherever they claim.

Even within the EU there is a redistribution of refugees as geographic proximity to Syria or N. Africa obviously has little to do with ability to resettle refugees.

As to whether they are refugees or not, that is for the courts to decide, but personally, the distinction is pretty meaningless. Humans have always migrated. Trying to control it is like trying to hold up the tide.

Read what I said above. As mentioned, if their previous home is France then their asyium claim is hardly valid. Unless you think France is a dangerous **** hole. Just because migration happens does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say 'come on in, as many as you like'. Look what happened when Merkel tried that on a more limited scale as mentioned by me upthread.

My point about France not doing its share is neatly backed up by Priti Patel's request that France do more to stop illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Rather than deny that there was a problem, they asked for £30m a year to do it...

Happy to let the EU take the 'King Canute and the tide' approach and bear the consequences.

john80

The bottom line is that if the asylum lovers take it too far it wont take too long for an internment pledge to win a majority at an election. Lets face it we have plenty of remote islands to build camps on where the supply of dinghies is harder to come by. As always the middle ground of being ruthless with blaggers and welcoming real claims should be what we are aiming for. We cant even sort out the blaggers that cant speak the language of their claimed country and have conveniently forgot their paperwork.

rick_chasey

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

tailwindhome

I've seen the illegal immigration across the English Channel estimated at 4000

There was something on other threads about perspective.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

It's not an option for the poor unless they are being moved by gangs to work as slaves. The ones you see in the channel will have paid $30k to get there.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

In fairness to me, I would actually have restrictions, and I would have much stricter rules on integration, but it's not the thread for it.

I'm pretty chill about asylum seekers and I suspect people risking their lives with nada in their life apart from the clothes on their back are quite likely to be asylum seekers.

Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?