Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I appreciate it's a reasonably large organisation, but you'd think they'd have just the one 'hymn sheet' at the MoD!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53704809

Perhaps the original 'source' wasn't aware of the MACA protocol?

Much of the surface fleet, plus ( obvs ) all of the subs, would be useless in such operations. What exactly are the RN going to do ? Blockade the French coast ? Ram and sink RIBs overloaded with women and children ? Get them off their boats and dump them back on the French beaches ?

[badgerx16]

50 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How about doing an Australia and guaranteeing that anyone coming here illegally will be removed as soon as it is feasible? That would certainly bring the numbers down and we wouldn't need the cooperation of France. 

Stick them on Portsea Island ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

How about doing an Australia and guaranteeing that anyone coming here illegally will be removed as soon as it is feasible? That would certainly bring the numbers down and we wouldn't need the cooperation of France. 

Where you going to send them back to, if not France? 

If they refuse to name their country of origin, what we going to do, guess?
“OH, Mo, you look Iraqi , it’s back to Baghdad for you my son”. 
 

I’m all for sending them home, but it’s not that simple. The only way to discourage them is to treat them like shit,  so that France is a more attractive proposition, or make the channel crossing so dangerous that it puts them off attempting it. Neither of those should be policy in a civilised country. It’s a long term issue that I doubt we’ll ever solve until the awful places they live in are decent tolerant peaceful  societies. 

Edited 8 August, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

Very good post.

[badgerx16]

Given that emigration from the UK to EU countries is said to have gone up by 30% compared to pre-Brexit figures, maybe we need some of these immigrants ?

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Given that emigration from the UK to EU countries is said to have gone up by 30% compared to pre-Brexit figures, maybe we need some of these immigrants ?

Then they can come in via the legitimate route. 

[Batman]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Much of the surface fleet, plus ( obvs ) all of the subs, would be useless in such operations. What exactly are the RN going to do ? Blockade the French coast ? Ram and sink RIBs overloaded with women and children ? Get them off their boats and dump them back on the French beaches ?

the only difference the RN (or the military) can make, is greater numbers.  But greater numbers to do what?

nothing to stop migrants coming, and then throw themselves out of their dinghy's to be 'rescued' when met with the temporary 'wall' .  They all know food, water, lodgings (4* hotels?) and money awaits them.  Appallingly weak by UKPLC

Anyway, it's all for show and and nothing but a reaction to Nigel Farage.  Lets not pretend the govt didnt know the scale of the crossing before Nigel filmed it

The RN/MOD will jump at the chance to 'step in' .  The picture will be painted that the armed forces (again) filled the 'gap' and it wont come out of the MOD budget, so an added bonus and a PR win - unless something goes very wrong

Edited 8 August, 2020 by Batman

[ecuk268]

The Home Office are seeking "tougher action in France". 

I thought that Brexit meant controlling our borders (that was always a myth) so we're asking the French to do it for us. As we've left the EU, I doubt that the French will be very sympathetic.

Somewhat ironic, but at least Britain First are doing their bit:

https://newsthump.com/2020/08/09/britain-first-launch-english-channel-patrol-boat-hms-diffendor-of-are-cuntry/

Edited 9 August, 2020 by ecuk268

[Lord Duckhunter]

26 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

I thought that Brexit meant controlling our borders (that was always a myth) so we're asking the French to do it for us. 

Do you understand the difference between legal immigration & illegal immigration? 

[ecuk268]

34 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Do you understand the difference between legal immigration & illegal immigration? 

So what?

Why should the French cooperate when the the current agreement lapses at the end of the year?

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

So what?

Why should the French cooperate when the the current agreement lapses at the end of the year?

I'm not sure whether someone's immigration status of either legal or illegal has got anything to do with the French has it?

Not sure what your point is about French cooperation.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm not sure whether someone's immigration status of either legal or illegal has got anything to do with the French has it?

Not sure what your point is about French cooperation.

He doesn’t seem to understand the Brexit immigration  debate was over FoM, legal immigration. We always had the levers to control illegal immigration (just not the will),we now have control of legal immigration as well. Whether we use that control is open to debate, but it’s there, and it wasn’t before leaving. 

Edited 9 August, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[ecuk268]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm not sure whether someone's immigration status of either legal or illegal has got anything to do with the French has it?

Not sure what your point is about French cooperation.

We need the French to help prevent the immigrants leaving France. Once the agreement lapses, the French can just let them leave as they wish. It's not their problem anymore. They would probably be glad to see them go. 

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He doesn’t seem to understand the Brexit immigration  debate was over FoM, legal immigration. We always had the levers to control illegal immigration (just not the will),we now have control of legal immigration as well. Whether we use that control is open to debate, but it’s there, and it wasn’t before leaving. 

The Tories in Government (as opposed to the membership) have never been serious about immigration control. In the years leading up to Brexit, net immigration was about 300000 per year split roughly equal between EU and non-EU. They always had the power to control non-EU immigration but did nothing. They made tough-sounding noises (get it down to the tens of thousands) but that's just to placate the Mail and Express readers. Numerous studies have pointed out the net contribution that immigrants make to the economy and, while EU immigration may decrease, I doubt whether it will amount to much.

[st.bangkok]

13 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

We need the French to help prevent the immigrants leaving France. Once the agreement lapses, the French can just let them leave as they wish. It's not their problem anymore. They would probably be glad to see them go. 

Firstly France never did control immigramts leaving. We all know they just let them so they could get shot of them and dump them on us. 

When we leave the EU, if France lets them continue to leave so easily, we will be well within our rights to simply send them back as by EU law, they should settle where they were, not try and make it to a non EU country. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

The Tories in Government (as opposed to the membership) have never been serious about immigration control. In the years leading up to Brexit, net immigration was about 300000 per year split roughly equal between EU and non-EU. They always had the power to control non-EU immigration but did nothing. They made tough-sounding noises (get it down to the tens of thousands) 

Anyone who thinks Johnson is going to cut immigration, hasn’t  been studying his career very closely. He’s even proposed an amnesty in the past. 

Edited 10 August, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[ecuk268]

3 hours ago, st.bangkok said:

Firstly France never did control immigramts leaving. We all know they just let them so they could get shot of them and dump them on us. 

When we leave the EU, if France lets them continue to leave so easily, we will be well within our rights to simply send them back as by EU law, they should settle where they were, not try and make it to a non EU country. 

We can try but it can take years to process each case after numerous legal challenges and appeals. 

[Wes Tender]

1 minute ago, ecuk268 said:

We can try but it can take years to process each case after numerous legal challenges and appeals. 

We have a government with a very strong majority. If the will is there, it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to change the law so that the entire process can be shortened considerably. Legal challenges are only feasible if the law is unclear.

[ecuk268]

4 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

We have a government with a very strong majority. If the will is there, it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to change the law so that the entire process can be shortened considerably. Legal challenges are only feasible if the law is unclear.

Possibly, but then the ECHR would get involved (nothing to do with the EU) and it could drag on for ages. Also, if they seek asylum, we have to accept them under the Geneva Convention and then examine each case. 

As you say "if the will is there". Easier to kick the can down the road and put out the odd statement on how "tough" we are going to be. But, whatever you do, don't set targets. 

Of course we could resurrect May's "Go Home" vans. They were really effective weren't they?

[benjii]

20 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

We have a government with a very strong majority. If the will is there, it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to change the law so that the entire process can be shortened considerably. Legal challenges are only feasible if the law is unclear.

Just change international law.

Easy.

#takebackcontrol

[Wes Tender]

International Law didn't do much to help immigrants trying to get into Australia, did it? It isn't helpful sending out the message that we will put them up in smart hotels and give them free guided tours of Anfield. 

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

International Law didn't do much to help immigrants trying to get into Australia, did it? It isn't helpful sending out the message that we will put them up in smart hotels and give them free guided tours of Anfield. 

Whilst this is true, where do we have that can be used to create camps as the Australians have on PNG and other Pacific islands ?

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

Just change international law.

Easy.

#takebackcontrol

Certainly seems to be the suggestion from Boris :

Quote

The prime minister said he wanted to work with the French to stop the activity of "cruel" criminal gangs taking migrants across the English Channel.

"We need to look at the means by which they are coming here, we need to stop them, working with the French, we need to stop them from getting across the Channel," Boris Johnson said.

"But number two we need to look at the legal framework that we have, all the panoply of laws that an illegal immigrant has at his or her disposal that allow them to stay here and we need to look at what we can do to change that."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53719575

[Wes Tender]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Whilst this is true, where do we have that can be used to create camps as the Australians have on PNG and other Pacific islands ?

We have many, many offshore islands, but maybe we ought to put them all up in an old Pontin's Holiday Camp. Camber Sands isn't too long a coach journey. Otherwise a retired ocean liner might suit, moored a few miles off the coast.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

We have many, many offshore islands, but maybe we ought to put them all up in an old Pontin's Holiday Camp. Camber Sands isn't too long a coach journey. Otherwise a retired ocean liner might suit, moored a few miles off the coast.

I don't think any camp could be on the mainland, and the point about the islands the Aussies use is that they are all a long way away. Also, I don't think you can moor anything "a few miles off the coast"; things like prison hulks in the 18th and 19th centuries were still in harbours.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

We have many, many offshore islands, but maybe we ought to put them all up in an old Pontin's Holiday Camp. Camber Sands isn't too long a coach journey. Otherwise a retired ocean liner might suit, moored a few miles off the coast.

What would be the point of putting them in a cruise liner, they wouldn’t be any less of our problem, apart from costing us more money?

[whelk]

10 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

International Law didn't do much to help immigrants trying to get into Australia, did it? It isn't helpful sending out the message that we will put them up in smart hotels and give them free guided tours of Anfield. 

I can report I have seen none in my plush expensive hotel. May ease your little fears.

Doubt I will meet a beggar who gets into his Porsche at the end of day either 

[rooney]

20 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

International Law didn't do much to help immigrants trying to get into Australia, did it? It isn't helpful sending out the message that we will put them up in smart hotels and give them free guided tours of Anfield. 

The Tolpuddle Martyrs made it ok.

[Fan The Flames]

Isn't the point about Australia is that they are surrounded by international water and so they can behave differently, our sovereign water butts directly upto French water. So we are bound by different conventions.

I see the UK government are currently in France seeking French co-operation as stated by the more rational on here.

[buctootim]

Those posters demanding the duplicitous French stop people making the journey would argue exactly the opposite if they were French. 

Why exactly should the French spend time and money stopping those illegal immigrants to France who just want to leave and get to Britain. 

 

[Wes Tender]

12 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Those posters demanding the duplicitous French stop people making the journey would argue exactly the opposite if they were French. 

Why exactly should the French spend time and money stopping those illegal immigrants to France who just want to leave and get to Britain. 

 

There is every reason for the French to want to get rid of these immigrants, so that they will not be a burden on their housing, health and education services. But that is not a valid excuse for them choosing to ignore their legal responsibilities, is it?

Edited 11 August, 2020 by Wes Tender

[badgerx16]

France received 129 thousand asylum applications last year, the UK received less than 50 thousand. The numbers crossing the channel represent less than 1% of total immigration to the UK. In January, at the end of the Brexit transition period, the current treaty by which we can send them back expires.

[buctootim]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

France received 129 thousand asylum applications last year, the UK received less than 50 thousand. The numbers crossing the channel represent less than 1% of total immigration to the UK. In January, at the end of the Brexit transition period, the current treaty by which we can send them back expires.

Wes doesn't like facts. He prefers his feelings 

[Wes Tender]

18 hours ago, buctootim said:

Wes doesn't like facts. He prefers his feelings 

Where did I dispute any statistics on immigration? Show me. You can't, so this sort of line is the sort of pathetic approach I have come to expect from you.

Of course France received many more asylum applications than us last year. It is due north across the Mediterranean from Libya and North Africa, so the obvious destination for refugees and economic migrants from there. What has that got to do with our stance on immigrants entering our country from across the channel?

Those who are genuinely fleeing danger in their own countries and see France as a safe place, apply for asylum there in accordance with the rules. Those who cross one or more safe countries to get here with no identity papers are far less likely to be asylum seekers and if proven not to be, should not be allowed to stay.

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Those who cross one or more safe countries to get here with no identity papers are far less likely to be asylum seekers and if proven not to be, should not be allowed to stay.

Very easy to say when you live in a country which helps cause refugees flows but is an island and doesnt have to deal with most of the consequences of its actions. 

Many of the refugees flowing into France are from Libya or are transiting Libya because there is no effective government there - largely the UK's fault.  

Lebanon, a country of six million people is struggling with 1 million refugees from Syria. You think they alone should bear the burden because although they had nothing to do with the crisis they happen to be a neighbour?

 

 

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Of course France received many more asylum applications than us last year. It is due north across the Mediterranean from Libya and North Africa, so the obvious destination for refugees and economic migrants from there. What has that got to do with our stance on immigrants entering our country from across the channel?

 

You said that France was happy for the migrants to cross the channel as they would not be a burden on their housing, health, and education services, yet for every person floating around on a RIB there are 30 that have applied for Gallic asylum.

[Wes Tender]

20 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Very easy to say when you live in a country which helps cause refugees flows but is an island and doesnt have to deal with most of the consequences of its actions. 

Many of the refugees flowing into France are from Libya or are transiting Libya because there is no effective government there - largely the UK's fault.  

Lebanon, a country of six million people is struggling with 1 million refugees from Syria. You think they alone should bear the burden because although they had nothing to do with the crisis they happen to be a neighbour?

 

 

Didn't you see the bit where I said that many of the "refugees" flowing into France came from Libya or North Africa? I put the word "refugees" in quotes, as any economic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa would also come via that route.

There was a very good article on Conservative Home this morning that covers my position very well "Allowing illegal migrant boats to cross the Channel is false compassion"

Essentially it argues that our best policy it to take a share of refugees directly from camps such as those in the Lebanon, instead of allowing an allocation of those who claim to be refugees, but couldn't be bothered to claim asylum in the first safe country they got into, and expected to jump the queue of those being allowed into the UK.

[Wes Tender]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You said that France was happy for the migrants to cross the channel as they would not be a burden on their housing, health, and education services, yet for every person floating around on a RIB there are 30 that have applied for Gallic asylum.

Throw a pebble into a pond and it makes ripples. How far away do you want to go to make comparisons of numbers? Compare France's figures against Timmy's for a country directly adjoining a war zone and you can make this argument against them too. And yet many of these people hoping to enter the UK illegally from France are from Syria, North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, all over the place. In the same way that there will be immigrants wanting to come here from our ex-colonial territories, France had substantial colonial interests in Africa, so many French speakers from there will favour France for that reason.

[Wes Tender]

duplicate post

Edited 12 August, 2020 by Wes Tender
duplicate

[buctootim]

4 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Those who cross one or more safe countries to get here with no identity papers are far less likely to be asylum seekers and if proven not to be, should not be allowed to stay.

 

Duckie covered this is a very good post a few days ago. 

Is it morally right that some economic migrants who have money to pay people smugglers get to be processed in the UK whilst genuine political refugees languish in prison or are executed - of course not. No-one doubts that economic migration is a real issue. The tricky part is what are you going to do about it and how you are going to separate the genuine from the liars when neither carry papers.   

 

[Wes Tender]

3 minutes ago, buctootim said:

 

Duckie covered this is a very good post a few days ago. 

Is it morally right that some economic migrants who have money to pay people smugglers get to be processed in the UK whilst genuine political refugees languish in prison or are executed - of course not. No-one doubts that economic migration is a real issue. The tricky part is what are you going to do about it and how you are going to separate the genuine from the liars when neither carry papers.   

 

In my opinion, there is greater certainty that you are dealing with genuine refugees if you take them (and their families) directly from refugee camps in countries bordering the conflict zones. There is a far greater chance that mostly fit, single young men arriving illegally in boats having traveled often thousands of miles to get here, are more likely to be economic migrants or will even include some terrorists.

[Wes Tender]

And in other much more lightweight news, overpriced Yank ice-cream manufacturer Ben & Jerry's have decided that there might be media mileage in raising their profile (without expenditure from their advertising budget), by sticking their unwanted oar into the debate.

They have attempted to climb the virtue signalling ladder by using twatter to condemn Priti Patel's policy to try and stem the tide of illegal entry into the UK by these immigrants crossing the Channel from France. And they have certainly got great mileage for the exposure of their brand in the national red tops, but also some pretty cutting responses telling them to stick to selling their over-priced junk food ice-cream instead of poking their noses in matters they know nothing about.

I expect that their sales will increase among the woke leftie community and correspondingly decrease among the political right.

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

......yet many of these people hoping to enter the UK illegally from France are from Syria, North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, .......

So, what do Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq have in common ? Do we not have some degree of moral responsibility ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Those who cross one or more safe countries to get here with no identity papers are far less likely to be asylum seekers and if proven not to be, should not be allowed to stay.

If they’ve got no identity papers, where do we send them back to? 

[aintforever]

11 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

What has that got to do with our stance on immigrants entering our country from across the channel?

 

If France already take more than us then they are not going to spend a fortune trying to stop them coming over here. Especially if they are coming from fucked up war-zones we helped create.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

10 hours ago, aintforever said:

If France already take more than us then they are not going to spend a fortune trying to stop them coming over here. Especially if they are coming from fucked up war-zones we helped create.

 

How does this 'quota' system work?  Who sets the parameters and what are they based on?

[Wes Tender]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/boris-johnson-urged-by-eu-official-to-take-brexit-deal-1-6797029

EU urges Boris Johnson to take ‘unique and highly attractive’ offer over Brexit

An EU official has urged Boris Johnson to take the ‘unique and highly attractive’ offer it has made to the UK which it says has never been offered to any country before.

Correct. The EU would like us to accept an offer that has not been offered to anybody else before. Other third countries like Canada, Japan and S.Korea get FTA deals with the EU that don't have them needing to sign up to level playing field rules, access to their coastal fisheries and jurisdiction of EU law over their own law. This is exactly what we want to have too. We don't want a unique deal. When the EU tells us that it is an attractive deal, of course what they mean, is attractive to them.

According to them, a no-deal Brexit is a disorderly one. Not if proper planning arrangements have been made it isn't.

The New European is the media mouthpiece of the EU, so I wonder how long it will be before they stop parroting this nonsense about level playing fields, fisheries access and ECJ that we have told them we will not accept. How long will it take for the reality to dawn on them, that unless they drop those three parts that are red lines for us, there will be no FTA? I very much doubt that the Germans will believe for one moment that the situation is that we Brits have an unique and highly attractive EU deal in front of us. If they do, then they are in for a nasty shock when we walk away from it.

[badgerx16]

Japan, Canada, and South Korea don't have issues over their coastal fisheries, as their coastal waters aren't shared with the EU; Canada is nearest, at about 2500 miles away, rather than half the width of the English Channel. Nor do any of them trade approx 50% of their total with the EU.

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Japan, Canada, and South Korea don't have issues over their coastal fisheries, as their coastal waters aren't shared with the EU; Canada is nearest, at about 2500 miles away, rather than half the width of the English Channel. Nor do any of them trade approx 50% of their total with the EU.

I did realise that our coastal waters are much closer to the EU than those of Canada, Japan and S. Korea. But the point is they are our coastal waters and therefore we should be permitted to determine who fishes in them, as those other countries are allowed to with theirs. Regarding your second sentence, does the fact that we trade 45% with the EU, a far greater proportion than those other countries do, suggest that we ought to be able to obtain a better or a worse deal with the EU than those other countries? I would have thought it merited a better deal. You?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

I did realise that our coastal waters are much closer to the EU than those of Canada, Japan and S. Korea. But the point is they are our coastal waters and therefore we should be permitted to determine who fishes in them, as those other countries are allowed to with theirs. Regarding your second sentence, does the fact that we trade 45% with the EU, a far greater proportion than those other countries do, suggest that we ought to be able to obtain a better or a worse deal with the EU than those other countries? I would have thought it merited a better deal. You?

How do you know that, in it's entirity, the EU deal on offer isn't 'better' for the UK ? Just because you don't like it ? Because of our proximity, economically and geographically, there are bound to be things that the EU want to include; they are protecting their own interests, as are we.

 Anything yet in the news about German car manufacturers 'beating down the doors' of Angela Merkel's official residence ?