BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I've lost count of the amount of times I've pointed out to my Dad that the immigrants he is complaining about are not European so leaving the EU had zero impact.
He, along with a few others apparently, think we can simply repel boarders using our wonderful navy and army. Small country, small minds.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.0 -
So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".0
-
What queue?john80 said:of the queue
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
He's threatening to use article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol. This is within the rights of the UK and the EU will be within its rights to respond.rick_chasey said:So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".
0 -
rick_chasey said:
So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".
I think his brief is just to break it and blame it on the EU. I think that's the entire extent of his strategy. He's just a wrecker.0 -
I don't see how the UK can invoke Article 16 when they've essentially kicked the most onerous part of the protocol (SPS checks) forward indefinitely.rick_chasey said:So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".
Why move away from a position of stalemate
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Because that's not enough if you actually want to break it. You need to throw the chessboard off the table to show your negotiating strength.tailwindhome said:
I don't see how the UK can invoke Article 16 when they've essentially kicked the most onerous part of the protocol (SPS checks) forward indefinitely.rick_chasey said:So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".
Why move away from a position of stalemate0 -
Presumably at some point the EU will try to move from the stalemate, but that would be a better time for article 16.tailwindhome said:
I don't see how the UK can invoke Article 16 when they've essentially kicked the most onerous part of the protocol (SPS checks) forward indefinitely.rick_chasey said:So Frost is threatening to suspend Article 16 protocol (the Northern Ireland protocol) if the EU won't re-negotiate part of it > which it won't as it currently stands. EU's approach is "be glad we didn't launch legal action".
Why move away from a position of stalemate0 -
-
Are 'solutions within the framework of the Protocol' not a feature of the framework of the Protocol that Frost negotiated?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It you and the majority of the forum that gets your panties in a wad about the life and death risks these few thousand face. Why are you bothered about the risks they take.rjsterry said:
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.0 -
That sounds like the response of someone who can no longer argue their case. May as well have come back with "your Mama".0
-
Your life would be happier if you didn't obsess about them.0
-
To be fair, there were 828 recorded attempted crossings in 1 day recently. If you annualise that, it is over 300,000 a year. Which fits into the 'hundreds of thousands' category you refer to above for 'other countries'.rjsterry said:
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That was a particularly high )record?) number due to favourable conditions. Annualising from that is as pointless as posting a voting intention survey when there is no election coming up. Large parts of the year no-one is trying to cross at all.Stevo_666 said:
To be fair, there were 828 recorded attempted crossings in 1 day recently. If you annualise that, it is over 300,000 a year. Which fits into the 'hundreds of thousands' category you refer to above for 'other countries'.rjsterry said:
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.0 -
Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?0
-
kingstongraham said:
Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?
To be fair, some people might choose a particular day to imply massive annual numbers.0 -
Point is, it is not a trivial number when looked at over time. Would you not agree?kingstongraham said:Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?
Same point to Brian and Pross."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Point is, it is not a trivial number when looked at over time. Would you not agree?kingstongraham said:Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?
Same point to Brian and Pross.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171253/migrant-channel-crossings-in-the-uk/0 -
The graph is obscured because it is asking me to sign up to something. Would it by any chance be showing an upward trend?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Point is, it is not a trivial number when looked at over time. Would you not agree?kingstongraham said:Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?
Same point to Brian and Pross.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171253/migrant-channel-crossings-in-the-uk/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
SuperbStevo_666 said:
To be fair, there were 828 recorded attempted crossings in 1 day recently. If you annualise that, it is over 300,000 a year. Which fits into the 'hundreds of thousands' category you refer to above for 'other countries'.rjsterry said:
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
And your point is?tailwindhome said:
SuperbStevo_666 said:
To be fair, there were 828 recorded attempted crossings in 1 day recently. If you annualise that, it is over 300,000 a year. Which fits into the 'hundreds of thousands' category you refer to above for 'other countries'.rjsterry said:
There is if the applicant meets the criteria. The rules also state that you should apply *when* you reach the UK. Goodness knows why you are obsessing over a few thousand crossing the Channel and proposing outlandish solutions when hundreds of thousands migrate to the country every year for other reasons.john80 said:
I am not disputing this however you will be aware there is no requirement for the UK to grant asylum either.rjsterry said:
There is no requirement for refugees to apply for asylum in the nearest country. They are free to choose whichever they wish. Those are the rules we have signed up to and the government has confirmed that they have no intention of withdrawing from that treaty. So it is our problem.john80 said:
I suggested they apply at the first embassy they come to. You inability to understand this is not my problem. Admittedly very few of them would get in as they are not in danger in France so are essential but economic migrants but you have created a system they can apply to. Explaining why the UK is the only country that could possibly give them safe haven and let them jump straight to the head of the immigration queue could be a tall order though.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
The nearest British Embassy if you are in Afghanistan is in Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan already houses 1.5 million refugees. If you are fleeing Syria, then Turkey is probably the nearest. Turkey currently houses 4 million refugees. Our fretting about how to cope with a few thousand crossing the Channel must look absolutely absurd to the Turkish government."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Let's put it another way. Maybe some one can explain to me why it is a good thing for us that these people come to the UK when they could stay on the continent? Some of you seem quite keen for them to come here when they are safe in France."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Stevo_666 said:
The graph is obscured because it is asking me to sign up to something. Would it by any chance be showing an upward trend?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Point is, it is not a trivial number when looked at over time. Would you not agree?kingstongraham said:Why would you annualise that number? It gets cold in winter, you know?
Same point to Brian and Pross.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171253/migrant-channel-crossings-in-the-uk/
You'll be glad you didn't annualise a figure from last September.
0 -
Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.
Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.0 -
OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.briantrumpet said:Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.
Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.briantrumpet said:Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.
Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.
Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?0
