Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,299
A great post, Ray. Clearly we see things the same way, but it is important that event the most loyal of government supporters can see beyond the rhetoric.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have seen footballers, teachers, office workers not returning to their offices (later narrowed down to civil servants as they are considered fair game) painted as pantomime villains. And now we see the government desperate to fall out with somebody/anybody about kids going back to school (nobody is disagreeing). Finally, all out of pantomime villains, of course they fall back on migrants and foreign countries. We've seen similar from Trump. Throughout all of this - no effective track and trace system has materialised.
I'm not saying illegal migration is OK - of course not. I am saying that IF the Government is really serious about tackling it, it should do so, rather than trying to make it a convenient distraction.
Guest 3706- Registered: 21 Jul 2020
- Posts: 126
ray hutstone wrote: 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!
If there is little we can do to stop them arriving, or send them back, how about post Jan 1, 2021 we revisit what we provide, because I see only economic migrants mostly males under 25, not vulnerable people.
We shouldn't conflate 200 people a day arriving on our beaches with what the government are putting out as FUD (Fear, uncertainty & distraction) - and any one who listens to what they put out also needs their head read.
Other than that, Ray - brilliant post, learned a few things from it - thanks.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
For anyone interested, a little more detail on the areas covered by Ray's post #41:
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/08/updated-qs-and-as-on-legal-issues-of.htmlBrian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the only way the navy, border force can and should is picking up these boat people and raking them straight back to france. regardless of what side of the channel they are found in.
The Gov and Guest 3706 like this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Brian Dixon wrote:the only way the navy, border force can and should is picking up these boat people and raking them straight back to france. regardless of what side of the channel they are found in.
Not permissible under international maritime law, Brian. Something else that our beloved leaders shy away from explaining.
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,071
It's
déjà vu all over again! It seems Tory platitudes holiday on the SE coast every summer season.
2019: de Pfeffel: '
we'll send you back.' Patel: '
we're seeking urgent discussions with the French.' Elphicke: '
only when migrants and traffickers alike know that they will not succeed in crossing the English Channel will this crisis come to an end.'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1169551/dover-migrant-crossing-illegal-immigration-boris-johnson-news-latest
The trouble with RB's line (#33) is that
it is increasingly easy to 'blame the government.' That's because governments now have unprecedented reach and increasingly ambitious (and fearful) nook-and-cranny interventionist programmes (we're all inside one right now, if you hadn't noticed). They want us to believe they're constantly 'doing something' about
everything, and that 'doing something' occasionally runs into surmountable obstacles (the French, folks in Leicester). It's a fiction, of course: they can stop neither a virus nor a dinghy. But the rules of fiction mean that, all the while they insist they can, we can hold them to it.
Guest 3706 likes this
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
ray, if the french can get away with it so can we, law or no law. and its about time the french took full responcability for them.
The Gov likes this
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
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.
Just Sioux, Guest 3706 and John Buckley like this
Arte et Marte
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Excuse me, Reggie.
In #32 I made a simple point that Mrs Elphicke was not being entirely honest in her tough line on refugees. You then waded in with your sneering 'if only it were as simple as the Dublin 11 agreement' bull.
I then replied with some facts about immigration law. So tell me where I'm wrong. It's not guff, Reggie. It's a collection of facts. If you don't like being called out, then don't troll.
Guest 3706 likes this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
I hope I am not the only member who is getting fed up with some of the derogatory comments just because someone has the audacity to have an alternative view or support a different political party.
I hope it is simply because of this heat.
Just Sioux, The Gov, Brian Dixon and
3 more like this
Just Sioux, The Gov, Brian Dixon, Reginald Barrington, Guest 3706 and Button like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,057
Jan Higgins wrote:I hope it is simply because of this heat.
I reckon I'll stay sheltered under my bridge.
Pablo and Jan Higgins like this
(Not my real name.)
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
ray hutstone wrote:Excuse me, Reggie.
In #32 I made a simple point that Mrs Elphicke was not being entirely honest in her tough line on refugees. You then waded in with your sneering 'if only it were as simple as the Dublin 11 agreement' bull.
I then replied with some facts about immigration law. So tell me where I'm wrong. It's not guff, Reggie. It's a collection of facts. If you don't like being called out, then don't troll.
Three posts in a row had mentioned the ability to return illegal immigrants under current circumstances the first saying the government failed to exercise that right.
So i point out if only it were that simple, with a few pertiment articles of EU law that show how difficult that could be.
which of my points are not correct? and how is a reply in the theme of a thread trolling?
Arte et Marte
Pablo- Registered: 21 Mar 2018
- Posts: 614
Reg and Stuart, you are each apparently engaged in a campaign to belittle the other. To me that is the epitome of trolling. In that you have successfully got under each other’s skin, you both seem to be quite good at it. But in my view it’s not big and it’s not clever, and apart from providing the rest of us with a little entertainment, it’s pretty pointless.
Just Sioux, Brian Dixon and Ross Miller like this
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
You might be right Pablo, I do occasionally post items that wil provoke! I try to ignore calling people names or belittling on a personal level though.
Just Sioux and Pablo like this
Arte et Marte
Gary39- Registered: 7 Jul 2017
- Posts: 451
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53741180
Ben and Jerry's ice cream founders now in the act
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
If I'm keeping you entertained Pablo, then so be it.
The point that seems to have raised dear Reggie's hackles is, I think, a Brexit related one. Sorry to use the dreaded word. Brexit that is, not Reggie.
We have returned failed asylum seekers to other EU countries since this whole issue began way back 2 decades ago. Primarily this has been to France. My point was that there will no continuing ability to do so from Jan. 1st 2012 unless a future agreement is reached.
Reg - you dismissed this by saying ' it is also contingent on the third country of asylum (UK) ensuring that the designated first country of asylum (France) will re-admit the applicant.
Plus the fact that France have not transposed Article 26( the relevant bit) into national legislation and it remains an optional provision'.
That's misdirection. Our French friends have been accepting returned refugees for years. Various current cabinet ministers have been at pains to point this out recently. After Jan 1st. there is a good chance that they will no longer to do so. That's not guff, it's a fact and a consequence of our leaving the Dublin protocol.
I'm quite happy to enter into a reasoned debate about the other points I raised. If you think that Laughing Boy has made a great success of handling this pandemic, then I'd love to hear your case. Maybe there is an ethical motive in kicking out Julian Lewis and not Ma (sorry) not the alleged rapist. Maybe all this PPE procurement has been an exercise in probity that could not be questioned. Please tell me why I have got these aspects so badly wrong.
I'd be delighted to hear your arguments rather than just describing it all as guff.
Pablo- Registered: 21 Mar 2018
- Posts: 614
Here we go again........
Jan Higgins likes this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Pablo wrote:Here we go again........
Agreed, but I am definitely not entertained or informed as I no longer bother to read the posts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------