The Irony Thread
Comments
-
Why only European countries in that list?blazing_saddles said:
Yeah, right, if you can call most of them them countries.rick_chasey said:
Plenty of nations have denser populations than the UK.blazing_saddles said:
Since you are crunching numbers.rjsterry said:
Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.Stevo_666 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?surrey_commuter said:
And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problemStevo_666 said:
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.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.
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.
The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.
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.
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.
Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²
The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.
I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.
1 Monaco 18,369 1.98
2 Gibraltar (UK) 4,328 6.8
3 Vatican City 2,045 0.44
4 Malta 1,260 316
5 Guernsey (UK) 990 78
6 Jersey (UK) 774 116
7 San Marino 455 61
8 Netherlands 393 41,526
9 Belgium 337 30,510
10 United Kingdom 267 243,610
I see a lot of UKs in there.
Monaco 2nd in the world, Gibralter 5th.
4 in the top 10 in Europe.0 -
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
A U.K. judge basically ruled in that way in 1999.Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html
As long as they’re just “stopping over”
And in what way are you not arguing that unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers??0 -
Ironically anyone who can get a packed dinghy across the channel has the can-do attitude Brexit Britain needs.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!3 -
As this is the irony thread, I nominate Stevo getting upset at people choosing a country's system they deem more advantageous for them.4
-
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I still don't see what you're talking about. War has never been mentioned. Please explain clearly where you get this from as it is not from me.rick_chasey said:
A U.K. judge basically ruled in that way in 1999.Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html
As long as they’re just “stopping over”
And in what way are you not arguing that unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers??"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Macau is number 1 in the world, Monaco number 2.kingstongraham said:
Why only European countries in that list?blazing_saddles said:
Yeah, right, if you can call most of them them countries.rick_chasey said:
Plenty of nations have denser populations than the UK.blazing_saddles said:
Since you are crunching numbers.rjsterry said:
Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.Stevo_666 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?surrey_commuter said:
And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problemStevo_666 said:
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.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.
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.
The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.
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.
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.
Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²
The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.
I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.
1 Monaco 18,369 1.98
2 Gibraltar (UK) 4,328 6.8
3 Vatican City 2,045 0.44
4 Malta 1,260 316
5 Guernsey (UK) 990 78
6 Jersey (UK) 774 116
7 San Marino 455 61
8 Netherlands 393 41,526
9 Belgium 337 30,510
10 United Kingdom 267 243,610
I see a lot of UKs in there.
Monaco 2nd in the world, Gibralter 5th.
4 in the top 10 in Europe.
Singapore is number 3, Hong Kong 4, (unless a million or two take up the UK option) 6 Bahrain, Maldives 8...............and Sint Maarten (where?) 10
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density
The rest are on that Europe list.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
That list has UK as 49th. Behind Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.blazing_saddles said:
Macau is number 1 in the world, Monaco number 2.kingstongraham said:
Why only European countries in that list?blazing_saddles said:
Yeah, right, if you can call most of them them countries.rick_chasey said:
Plenty of nations have denser populations than the UK.blazing_saddles said:
Since you are crunching numbers.rjsterry said:
Their home isn't France, is it? France has taken more than twice the number of refugees that the UK has. Germany: 4 times. Turkey and Pakistan each take more than the whole EU + UK combined. If anyone is not doing their bit it is the UK. If we really wanted to solve the problem we might address what's driving people out of Syria etc. and provide a safe route for people to claim asylum then let the courts do their job.Stevo_666 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?surrey_commuter said:
And when we become a non EU country it becomes our problemStevo_666 said:
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.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.
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.
The issue is with France shirking its responsibilities.
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.
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.
Frankly, I'm surprised you are so easily distracted by a tiny fraction of total immigration. Something that had been going on for months, but suddenly makes it into the news when a diversion is needed.
Respective land mass.
UK: 242,495 km²
France: 643,801 km²
Turkey: 783,562 km²
The reason you, Rick and others have been so critical of the UK's performance in regard of Covid is due in no small part to the UK's current population density.
There's also the potential for sizeable number of those Hong Kong citizens, who are already entitle to live in the UK, turning up.
I am just worried where we are supposed to fit everybody.
Then there's the question of employment in the current economic drought.
1 Monaco 18,369 1.98
2 Gibraltar (UK) 4,328 6.8
3 Vatican City 2,045 0.44
4 Malta 1,260 316
5 Guernsey (UK) 990 78
6 Jersey (UK) 774 116
7 San Marino 455 61
8 Netherlands 393 41,526
9 Belgium 337 30,510
10 United Kingdom 267 243,610
I see a lot of UKs in there.
Monaco 2nd in the world, Gibralter 5th.
4 in the top 10 in Europe.
Singapore is number 3, Hong Kong 4, (unless a million or two take up the UK option) 6 Bahrain, Maldives 8...............and Sint Maarten (where?) 10
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density
The rest are on that Europe list.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html0 -
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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.0 -
We've already discussed the Dublin Regulation so I suspect you are just sealioning now.surrey_commuter said:
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
BravoStevo_666 said:
We've already discussed the Dublin Regulation so I suspect you are just sealioning now.surrey_commuter said:
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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.0 -
Accepting this summary is true: "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."
What proportion of those making the journey from France to the UK would have France as the first EU country they reached?0 -
kingstongraham said:
Accepting this summary is true: "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."
What proportion of those making the journey from France to the UK would have France as the first EU country they reached?
This is a better summary of what the Dublin Regs actually are.0 -
Consider yourself well and truly SC'd.surrey_commuter said:
BravoStevo_666 said:
We've already discussed the Dublin Regulation so I suspect you are just sealioning now.surrey_commuter said:
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A master at work.Stevo_666 said:
Consider yourself well and truly SC'd.surrey_commuter said:
BravoStevo_666 said:
We've already discussed the Dublin Regulation so I suspect you are just sealioning now.surrey_commuter said:
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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.
In a matter of days you have gone from denying the existence of the Dublin Regulation to not understanding how it works, to saying it does not work, to argue for setting up a system identical to how it works to writing seemingly unconnected words.
Now demand I answer a random question and I will call bingo1 -
Careful. It appears that the guy actually knows what he is talking about 😏rick_chasey said:kingstongraham said:Accepting this summary is true: "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."
What proportion of those making the journey from France to the UK would have France as the first EU country they reached?
This is a better summary of what the Dublin Regs actually are.
Key points: Dublin Regs are about internal distribution of refugees within the EU, not dealings with third countries; and country of first entry is only one of the criteria considered.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Fair enough, but how on earth did you jump to the conclusion above just because I made a point that France needs to do more? Also I initially went on what you said about the Dublin agreement, so....surrey_commuter said:
A master at work.Stevo_666 said:
Consider yourself well and truly SC'd.surrey_commuter said:
BravoStevo_666 said:
We've already discussed the Dublin Regulation so I suspect you are just sealioning now.surrey_commuter said:
Do you accept that the Dublin Regulation will no longer apply to the UK on 1st Jan?Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned 3 pages back:rjsterry said:
Which specific responsibilities do you think they are shirking?Stevo_666 said:
No idea where you get that from.rick_chasey said:
Thems the rules the world signed up to.Stevo_666 said:
My point is that if they are coming from France then they are not asylum seeking, they are asylum shopping. As they were already are in somewhere safe but have chosen to leave that place for somewhere else.rick_chasey said:
Most likely yeah.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think that includes the ones who left France to head for the UK?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.
Have you seen any of the interviews of these people, on both sides of the channel?
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up close to few refugee families and got friendly with them that I have a different view.
Also for good, practical geopoltiocal reasons.
What you’re saying is unless the U.K. shares a sea or a border with a nation at war it should not have to take on any asylum seekers.
This is obviously preposterous.
I don't recall any country signing up to asylum seekers landing in a suitable country and then saying 'well I want that one instead'. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
And France need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
"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.
In a matter of days you have gone from denying the existence of the Dublin Regulation to not understanding how it works, to saying it does not work, to argue for setting up a system identical to how it works to writing seemingly unconnected words.
Now demand I answer a random question and I will call bingo"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Double post
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Also, as mentioned upthread we can currently return some to France/EU but not after transition ends.rjsterry said:
Careful. It appears that the guy actually knows what he is talking about 😏rick_chasey said:kingstongraham said:Accepting this summary is true: "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."
What proportion of those making the journey from France to the UK would have France as the first EU country they reached?
This is a better summary of what the Dublin Regs actually are.
Key points: Dublin Regs are about internal distribution of refugees within the EU, not dealings with third countries; and country of first entry is only one of the criteria considered.
If after transition there is no threat of people being returned to France and they have no obligation in law to stop them why would they do anything to stop them? Until now it could be argued the French could do more to stop people, but it can't be denied that they had been doing something and they were spending money on it. I don't know how that effort stacked up against any legal obligation but it's certainly more than they will be obliged to do next year as things stand at the moment.0 -
You still haven't explained what you want them to do more of. As explained above country of first entry is not the only or even primary criteria used to determine which country eventually hosts successful claimants.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think France have done quite enough to make the Calais camp an unpleasant place to be, and the journey across to the UK dangerous.0
-
I would get a Navy boat involved and have them block & push back the dingies. Create a diplomatic incident out of it if needs be with French coastguards escorting the illegals to UK waters. Any that jump in the sea can be rescued by the French coastguards as they are there escorting them.kingstongraham said:I think France have done quite enough to make the Calais camp an unpleasant place to be, and the journey across to the UK dangerous.
Then the French can de-escalate the situation by no longer escorting the illegals to UK waters and properly police their borders.
This will benefit the French as well as once these actions are being taken illegals will no longer turn up at Calais looking to get a dingy to the UK.0 -
I know that's generally the home secretary's idea as well. Doesn't really work though, does it? A boat? Patrolling how much of the channel? And letting people drown if someone else isn't there to rescue them?
I don't know what you think the navy is there for, but for me, that's not it.0 -
Because of tides they are launched at certain times to make the crossing easiest. This is not difficult to patrol as is exactly what the Navy are good at. Even TV news channels and Nigel Farage can find the boats.kingstongraham said:I know that's generally the home secretary's idea as well. Doesn't really work though, does it? A boat? Patrolling how much of the channel? And letting people drown if someone else isn't there to rescue them?
I don't know what you think the navy is there for, but for me, that's not it.
If no French boat to rescue them, they rescue them in French waters and return them to a French port. Rattle a few cages as currently the French are facilitating the human trafficking trade.0 -
France has sovereignty too.0
-
Coronavirus has killed 46,000 people and only 4000 migrants have made the crossing so far this year.
There was 35,000 asylum seekers applications in the year end to March 2020.
Only approximately 59% were successful.
Population growth in the UK is stable @ 0.6% per annum.
An ageing population forms a significant proportion of that figure.
ONS
Just a little perspective.seanoconn - gruagach craic!1 -
People paying to go on a boat trip off the south coast to see all the anchored up cruise ships because nobody wants to go on a cruise.0
-
The population of Venice should all go and look and not spend any money. That'll turn the tables.thistle_(mbnw) said:People paying to go on a boat trip off the south coast to see all the anchored up cruise ships because nobody wants to go on a cruise.
0 -
I thought that the Venetians would be happy.
However, they went from being inundated to being bereft of income under lockdown.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
