Chomper Higgot

At nowhere near the current numbers, and at that time the UK and French were cooperating. Johnson and Patel has actively sought to aggravate what non binding cooperation remained after Brexit.

Don’t expect help with that, the UK has withdrawn from the Dublin Agreement.

Brexit removed the UK from the Dublin Agreement. Don’t tell me to stop point out facts you don’t like hearing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59369179.amp And let’s not forget ‘Poject Fear’: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-illegal-immigration-free-movement-eu-leave-a8915816.html?amp Home Goal!

The legal basis for doing so is?

Why would they need to, the migrants are passing through France.

I was pointing out your statement wrt not ‘knowing the legalities of it’.

If the migrants were passing through the UK heading to another country, would you be insisting that the UK authorities act to stop them leaving the UK? The French Government were bound by the Dublin Agreement to do exactly what you want them to do, but then the UK left the Dublin Agreement when Brexit was ‘Done’. A stunning home goal!

Nothing to do with the EU.

You should acquaint yourself with the consequences of Brexit.

Not since Brexit they don’t, (Another ‘Home Goal’).

No. Unless you can find a legal basis for the French preventing people getting into boats and heading to the UK. The ‘Dublin Agreement’ would provide a legal obligation on the French but the UK ditched it as part of Brexit. Doh! “The United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union took effect at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, at which point the Regulation ceased to apply to it.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

“Explaining the rules of the sea and maritime law the immigration expert explained why French vessels were spotted seeming to escort migrants to UK waters.”

Let’s ponder the response from some parts of the press and public to a recent marriage into the British Royal Family.

Fact? Please provide evidence of this claimed ‘fact’?

Irrelevant, once in the UK they are subject to and protected by UK law.

But the court has also prevented a number of deportations. The cost to tax payers of this ill-conceived policy is climbing by the minute.

I’ve already answered your question, once again incase you missed it:

Not always so. Visas issued to Ukrainian refugees being an example.

Then deal with that in the UK immigration courts under UK law.

I have no idea. But if they are not ‘Asylum seekers’ then why is the Government trying to deport them under the under the Government’s ‘Rwanda Asylum Plan’?

I don’t have need if a bridge thank you. That’s a big ‘If’.

Irrelevant, once in the UK they are subject to and have the protections of UK law. Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal. Do you agree with everyone, including the Government being held accountable to the law?

Nothing at all if it’s where you choose to go. But the UK Government must obey the law and may not unlawfully deport people to Rawanda, though as demonstrated in the High Court that was the Government’s intention.

It seems Charles was on to something. A number of individuals have successfully defeated the Government’s attempt to deport them to Rawanda and in doing so demonstrated beyond doubt that the Government was in their case acting unlawfully. So we have it demonstrated in the High Court that without the assistance of NGO’s the Government was prepared to, and in the process of, deporting people out with their legal rights. Charles was right, this is appalling.