ray hutstone wrote:Usual partial grasp of the facts at best, Reggie.
Nobody was 'blaming the government'. The point I was making (and Neil too, I believe) was that tough but misleading rhetoric about the migrant situation was a good distraction technique from other matters. You accuse me of having a 'lazy conservative' narrative. The real issue is that you (amongst others) on here are incapable of seeing beyond an ideological belief that the current government can do no wrong.
Do you really believe that we 'sent the virus packing' or 'wrestled it to the ground' as we were promised? Perhaps you do. Any objective analysis of our handling of this pandemic will vary between way below expectations for a country of our stature and woeful. Then there is a government which immediately withdraws the whip from the MP Julian Lewis for having the temerity to challenge the half-witted Chris Grayling yet does nothing about a former cabinet minister under investigation for rape. And then comes the burgeoning scandal of millions being spaffed away (to use your hero's preferred words) on PPE equipment from companies with no experience and no capabilty save being friends of the likes of Truss and co. I could go on but frankly I don't have the energy. I doubt that you would understand anyway. But the point remains that, whatever you may think of the rights and wrongs of these issues, talking tough about migrants is a welcome distraction for this government and, sadly, our local MP.
As for the issue itself, the one thing you managed to get factually correct was the the UNHCR sits at the apex of the legal pyramid. Were we to absolve ourselves as a country to the moral and legal implications that being a signatory demands, then we could simply intercept all unauthorised entrants into our waters and detain them for repatriation to the countries of which they are citizens. No problem! No need to worry about being in fear of death or persecution! In international law nobody can be considered stateless so lets get them sent home!
Can you see the sainted Natalie explaining that to her constituents? Me neither.
But the Geneva protocol deals with refugees. It does not impose demands on individual countries as regards the handling of asylum seekers.
These laws are scattered all over the place incoherently. International lawyers like to describe asylum law as ‘fragmented’. There are three main sources of law on asylum in Europe, and although they are legally separate, their rules overlap and interact.
As we remain subject to EU law during the transition period, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) applies. This comprises 6 essential elements:-
a) legislation on responsibility of asylum applications (the Dublin rules: currently the Dublin III Regulation);
b) the Eurodac system of taking fingerprints of asylum-seekers and ‘illegal’ migrants;
c) laws on the definition of ‘refugee’ and parallel ‘subsidiary protection’ status, and the rights of beneficiaries of either status;
d) asylum procedure;
e) reception conditions for asylum-seekers, ie rules on benefits, detention and childrens’ education; and
f) an EU asylum agency, which supplements Member States’ administrations applying asylum law, but does not replace them.
Sorry to ramble on at length but the fact remains that we will cease to be subject to these regulations on January 1st 2021. Whatever misconceptions you may have about the applicability of it, under EU law the U.K. can transfer asylum seekers rescued in the Channel back to France. But that is a purely an EU rule; there’s nothing in international law about it. So, after the end of the transition in December, France will be under no such obligation.
That may not bother you at all. Personally, I find it wonderfully ironic when so many folks happily circulate 'all lives matter' memes around the internet but then start spinning apoplectically when someone suggest that might apply equally to refugees.
That's an awful lot of guff for a post just pointing out the fact that "it is not as simple as we can already send illegal migrants back"
Yet you manage your normal degree of belittling, baiting and mis-direction, you missed out the name calling this time though.