Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,931
Wonder how people feel about being misled over Brexit
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,938
Keith Sansum1 wrote:Wonder how people feel about being misled over Brexit
I believe you may be referring to the immigrant influx from across the channel Keith, but you must be aware that it is now a bigger global problem than it ever has been and needs a different mindset, than just having a political dig, to resolve the issue.
In politics there are always differing opinions Keith, that’s the nature of the beast.
The chance to vote is always there at elections and referendums in the U.K. and the chance to gloat is always available too, for those who wish to do so.
Voting provides a will to achieve something, gloating achieves nowt and doesn’t fix anything.
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
O.K. If you want to be half serious about asylum you have to look at its history.
There was no 'right' to asylum pre 1951.
Post WW2 the 1951 convention was designed as a bit of a round robin specifically designed to deal with dissplaced people in Europe.
It specifically discounted problems with 'Palestine' and the partiton of India.
In those days theere was damn all in the way of international travel andd we couldd all celebrate the odd person who fled Communism without getting shot and wave two ffingers up to the Ruskies.
Late sixtiess the later protocols came in so asylum was no longer 'political' but coveredpersecution on groundds of religious belief, sexuality, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
Sounds great and nobody cares because no international travel. Life nasty, brutish andd short for most off the planet but wwho cares, at least the bastards arent turning up here and after all I do give books to Oxfam and feel a bit worried about famine etc.
Expansion off international traael in the seventies/eightties and mostly people with money [compared to thee othe poor bastards, on the move]. I weent up to Gatwick mid Sri Lankan civil war. Three Jumbos. Full of a mixure of Sinhalese fleeing Tamils and Tamils fleeing Sinhalese. All on the same plane and haappy as Larry.
Heard a load off crap on the radio oer last few days. Appaarently with foreign aid after a while peope wont wan to leave their countries once they beecome habitable/sucessful/liveable?
unfortunately history shows that in the case of every emerging economy [dread phrase], for the firs decade, all that happensis anyone who can aford to do so moves to Europe/Usa etc!
Only solution is to wwithdraw from Convention whicch was written forr a difffent time?
Awfully sorry. Laodsa peope will endd up dead. They have throughout history
I honesly dont care. The only alernative is we treat all humanity the same, redistribute wealth putting heir diet up to three bowls off rice a day and ours down to same.
Sod that.
Someone asked me the otheer day what the worse song in the world was.
Without ddelay I said Lennon's 'Imagine".
So pissed offff aa stuff on this subject cant be botheredto spellcheck!
Pablo likes this
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,931
Bob
I don't care who attempts to do something , but someone needs to step up.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
If you want to be half-serious about asylum then get a legal opinion from someone suitably qualified, rather than listen the rants of local bigots or our MP.
The supposed “turn-around” policy for migrant boats is similar to previous reports of wave machines or floating fences. It sounds tough but will never be implemented.
Policies aimed at the interception or interdiction of asylum seekers at sea are fairly common. Australia, the United States, Italy, Greece and Spain have all done it. It can be done consistently with international refugee law: intercepting refugees at sea and transporting them to a genuinely safe third country does not breach the non-refoulement obligation imposed by Article 33 of the Refugee Convention because it does not force the refugees back into the arms of their persecutors.
But in those examples, the asylum seekers concerned are placed into the arms of someone else. By contrast, the French are not co-operating with Priti Patel’s supposed plan. A letter to that effect from her counterpart, Ministre de l’Intérieur Gérald Darmanin, has myteriously found its way to British journalists:
…the French position on intervention at sea remains unchanged. Safeguarding human lives at sea takes priority over considerations of nationality, status and migratory policy, out of strict respect for the international maritime law governing search and rescue at sea… The use of maritime refoulments to French territorial waters would risk having a negative impact on our cooperation.
I am not an expert on international maritime law, but as Professor Erik Røsæg summarises the position: “there is a duty and a right to render assistance to persons in danger at sea. This duty applies regardless of whether the rescue operations are believed to have an undesired pull effect, motivating refugees and migrants to travel”. The French position is therefore understandable.
Without French cooperation, what does “turnaround” mean? Towing a small boat back out to sea with insufficient fuel to resume its journey to the UK? It is obvious how dangerous that is for the passengers. They may well die. Exactly that occurred in the Mediterranean in 2011, when a boat from Libya carrying 72 passengers was left adrift for two weeks. Only nine people survived.
Or will Border Force officials try and judge to leave the small boat passengers with enough fuel to get to France but not the UK? What immigration official would actually, in real life, be willing to do that? Morality aside, it might raise manslaughter liability and would surely raise civil liability under the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The immigration officer trade union is understandably hostile and has already declared the idea “dead in the water” (dark pun possibly intended).
No sensible person is actively in favour of Channel boat crossings. They are very dangerous; it is only a month since someone last drowned. The available policy and legal options available to the government are very limited. It is hard to imagine that even more security would help the situation.
Deterrent policies — by which I mean treating people really badly when they get here in order to send a message to others and deter them from coming — simply do not work. The Borders and Nationality Bill currently before Parliament fits into this mould. Safe and legal routes to claim asylum are important and should be expanded but it may be unrealistic to imagine they would significantly reduce demand to reach the UK by other means.
It has long been obvious that if the government were actually serious about stopping the boats, it would need to negotiate with the French and/or EU and reach an agreement. The “turn-around” controversy only reinforces this point.
All this hostile posturing makes a deal with France less, not more, likely.
Brian Dixon likes this
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
Very little reference to asylum lots though on what is already known about maritime law, for a half serious post about asylum it's a little lacking don't you think?
Arte et Marte
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,070
ray hutstone wrote:someone suitably qualified
Who is this 'suitably qualified someone', RH?
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
SOLAS (latest 74 version) came about after the Titanic disaster .
FWIW 74 version came into agreement in 1980. Previously it only applied to commercial shipping.
Now it requires ALL vessels' masters (including all yachts and private craft) on all voyages and trips, including local ones, to offer assistance to those in distress.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Weird Granny Slater wrote:Who is this 'suitably qualified someone', RH?
Colin Yeo. Immigration barrister at Garden Court chambers.
#46 The point is to show the futility of the rhetoric of Elphike, Patel and co. It also underscores the fact that leaving the Dublin Agreement has removed our ability to return asylum seekers to their entry point into Europe. I seem to recall that you had a problem understanding that in an earlier thread.
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
No Ray you failed to grasp the point of that earlier post: It was regarding the fact that even with the Dublin agreement we still weren't able to send anybody back without explicit consent of the country we would be returning them to. I was in fact being critical of the Dublin agreement being a waste of paper.
Arte et Marte
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
Unfortunately there are few in the 'front line' of Immigration Control who dare report the facts.
The shop floor are worried about their mortgages, the management about their pensions.
The Official Secrets Act is always mentioned when the dogs are called in!
It's been going on for years.
When I joined IS in 1975 we were told that the Immigration Act of 1971 was the end of large scale immigration to the UK. It could have been. It was screwed up by successive Governments who would not accept that immigration control is not a 'nice' thing to do.
Not 'nice' but unfortunately 'necessary' I would suggest?
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Reginald Barrington wrote:No Ray you failed to grasp the point of that earlier post: It was regarding the fact that even with the Dublin agreement we still weren't able to send anybody back without explicit consent of the country we would be returning them to. I was in fact being critical of the Dublin agreement being a waste of paper.
As usual, the dialogue becomes akin to drawing teeth. The fact remains, Reggie, that however unpalatable you seem to find the fact, we were returning failed asylum seekers under the Dublin Agreement, now we are not.
As for the Home Office's assertion that Dublin would be superceded by bi-lateral agreements with individual countries, that has proved to be the claptrap most realistic commentators knew it would be.
In other words, yet another predictable and predicted example of how we are faring less well being out of the EU.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,931
Whoever feels they know the answers not much is changing
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,070
Captain Haddock wrote:It was screwed up by successive Governments who would not accept that immigration control is not a 'nice' thing to do.
I'd say it was used by successive governments, those of Blair in particular, to force 'multiculturalism' and 'regulate' wages. Not much has changed since. The Conservatives' rhetoric is as empty as a beggar's pocket: they want to keep it going while looking 'tough' for electoral purposes.
John Buckley likes this
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Guest 3925- Registered: 28 Nov 2020
- Posts: 541
Keith Sansum1 wrote:Whoever feels they know the answers not much is changing
And even if for those that think they've found a solution, there is so much involved, I wouldn't want to be the person trying to sort it.
Reginald Barrington likes this
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
ray hutstone wrote:As usual, the dialogue becomes akin to drawing teeth. The fact remains, Reggie, that however unpalatable you seem to find the fact, we were returning failed asylum seekers under the Dublin Agreement, now we are not.
Having conversations with me while I'm not present? You should probably seek help it's not a healthy thing to be doing.
So you can ascertain fact from fiction I'll clarify my position.
I have never disputed that we were returning failed asylum seekers under the Dublin Agreement(that I have, is one of the imaginary conversations.)
Simples really!
Arte et Marte
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Reginald Barrington wrote:Having conversations with me while I'm not present? You should probably seek help it's not a healthy thing to be doing.
So you can ascertain fact from fiction I'll clarify my position.
I have never disputed that we were returning failed asylum seekers under the Dublin Agreement(that I have, is one of the imaginary conversations.)
Simples really!
As I've said before, Reggie, the post truth view of life hasn't reached me here yet.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
For Heaven's sake it's all about the 51 convention and later protocols.
SEVENTY years old and no longer 'fit for purpose'.
The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there etc.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
ray hutstone wrote:As I've said before, Reggie, the post truth view of life hasn't reached me here yet.
Drawing teeth, facts, unpalatable truths, post truth, blah blah blah! show me where I said what you say I have, if you cannot you should apologise and stop having these imaginary conversations with me.
Arte et Marte