19 hours ago, Credo said:

Probably nothing if that's where you wanted to go.   There's nothing wrong with Brunei either, but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be happy if instead of the plane taking them to Thailand decided to just drop them off in Brunei.  

They would likely be less happy ending up in an immigration detention centre in Thailand with 50 others in the same, squalid cell, which is what usually happens if you try to come into or are caught in Thailand illegally. 

 

But then again no-one is coming to Thailand to leech off the taxpayer and the state, those economic migrants that do come usually work for minimum wage. 

 

And as I stated earlier, arrive in Thailand illegally on a boat, and the Navy may just tow you back out to sea and leave you. 

8 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, that's 96,000 who applied for asylum in France, and so are clearly not trying to get to the UK.

 

Even If there were 10,000 trying to get to the UK (and you don't provide any evidence for that) that would still mean there are vastly more who prefer to stay in France.

 

Stop peddling this falsehood that asylum seekers prefer to come to the UK. It's absolutely clear, and established by the actual numbers, that they don't.

Excellent, France can take  all the doctors and engineers that are fleeing war torn countries, they'll appreciate all the cultural enrichment they bring.????

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Was the Dublin Agreement intended return refugees from the UK to France? Can you show that it was?

Yep. It says the responsibility for them rests with their first arrival in the EU. You can go have a look at it if you really want. 
Trouble is that it never worked and none were sent back under it. That’s how good it was and how selective they are with their EU rules. To say that we can’t return them to France because we are not party to the Dublin Agreement anymore is wrong. 

16 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Yep. It says the responsibility for them rests with their first arrival in the EU. You can go have a look at it if you really want. 
Trouble is that it never worked and none were sent back under it. That’s how good it was and how selective they are with their EU rules. To say that we can’t return them to France because we are not party to the Dublin Agreement anymore is wrong. 

I did read it. Why do you think I challenged you to show me where it says what you claimed. The Dublin agreement does not provide for forcible return to France.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

I did read it. Why do you think I challenged you to show me where it says what you claimed. The Dublin agreement does not provide for forcible return to France.

Does not exclude it either.  It clearly says they are not the responsibility of the UK.
France can have them back and distribute to rest of the EU, unless they originally landed in France. 

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

Does not exclude it either.  It clearly says they are not the responsibility of the UK.
France can have them back and distribute to rest of the EU, unless they originally landed in France. 

What isn't in a law is excluded from that law (or agreement) by definition. Your question about how many refugees were deported back to France under that law is nonsense.

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your question about how many refugees were deported back to France under that law is nonsense.

What is nonsense about the question? They were/are French responsibility. 

How many went back? Could expecting the French to meet their responsibilities and keep them or take them back be the nonsensical part?

43 minutes ago, Loiner said:

What is nonsense about the question? They were/are French responsibility. 

How many went back? Could expecting the French to meet their responsibilities and keep them or take them back be the nonsensical part?

Once in the UK they are the UK’s responsibility, under UK law.

 

This has always been the case.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Loiner said:

What is nonsense about the question? They were/are French responsibility. 

How many went back? Could expecting the French to meet their responsibilities and keep them or take them back be the nonsensical part?

You cited the Dublin Agreement as the basis for returning refugees when it wasn't at all relevant to the issue of deporting refugees.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once in the UK they are the UK’s responsibility, under UK law.

 

This has always been the case.

 

 

Once they are in Rwanda, they will be Rwandas responsibility 

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Once they are in Rwanda, they will be Rwandas responsibility 

I recommend you read Mrs Beeton’s recipe for Jugged Hare.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You cited the Dublin Agreement as the basis for returning refugees when it wasn't at all relevant to the issue of deporting refugees.

Even if it contained clauses to permit deporting refugees, since Brexit the UK is not a party to the Dublin Agreement.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even if it contained clauses to permit deporting refugees, since Brexit the UK is not a party to the Dublin Agreement.

 

 

 

Are we now going to pretend that the U.K deported refugees whilst in the E.U and now that the UK has left the E.U, the U.K can no longer deport refugees ?

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You cited the Dublin Agreement as the basis for returning refugees when it wasn't at all relevant to the issue of deporting refugees.

Not so. 
I cited another poster’s repeated citing of our ex-agreement to the Dublin Agreement as a reason why the illegal migrants can’t be returned to France. 
I noted that we have never returned any and the agreement was just another regulation that France and the EU ignored when it suited them. It meant, and still means, nothing when they won’t accept their responsibilities. 

On 6/13/2022 at 9:35 AM, Bluespunk said:

Thus the johnson spoke from mount sinai and declared

 

Thou shalt not have an opinion that criticises our  policies, no matter how appalling they are. 

Why is it appalling?

On 6/13/2022 at 8:02 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Because like Charles, you were not elected, unlike Charles you posted your comments online, Charles made his comments in private.

 

 

We dont know even if he said it, just someone who 'leaked' claims he said it, wheres the proof?

 

Then there are leaks and leaks, some are intentional to stoke fires. Everyone can play politics.

18 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Are we now going to pretend that the U.K deported refugees whilst in the E.U and now that the UK has left the E.U, the U.K can no longer deport refugees ?

Why would I pretend such a thing?

 

Or, more precisely, why do you feel the need to suggest I would pretend such a thing?!

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why would I pretend such a thing?

 

Or, more precisely, why do you feel the need to suggest I would pretend such a thing?!

There have been quite a few posters who resent the UK leaving the E.U , mainly E.U citizens who now cannot stay and live and work in the U.K and also their Country has to pay more to be in the E.U.

   They always look for negatives about the U.K leaving and want to British people to regret leaving , they would like us to start crying and go running back to the E.U "Please let us join again" .

   I must have mistaken you for one of those people

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There have been quite a few posters who resent the UK leaving the E.U , mainly E.U citizens who now cannot stay and live and work in the U.K and also their Country has to pay more to be in the E.U.

   They always look for negatives about the U.K leaving and want to British people to regret leaving , they would like us to start crying and go running back to the E.U "Please let us join again" .

   I must have mistaken you for one of those people

A rather poor attempt at dragging your assumptions regarding the totally irrelevant nationality of other posters into discussion.

Back to topic please.

7 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Totally agree. If the people coming to the UK are real/genuine refugees, as you say, they are welcomed by most of the UK population. Its the illegals coming over the channel dinghy's that are the real problem. Mostly young men, under 30, so fighting age for their country? There may be a few families in with them that the media love to show, but few and far between. If they were real refugees they would apply thru the proper process instead of sneaking into the country.

Yes, look at Ukraine. Men of fighting age sending their families off on trains to the west for sanctuary as they head of east to bear arms. Real refugees.

 

Stark contrast to the mostly male economic migrants arriving illegally across the channel, the ones who say life is so bad they will be killed if they remain in their own countries but left their families behind.......(they can follow on later once roots have been established)

 

A lot of trafficking to the UK is from the Vietnamese, whats so terrible about that country? I read constant threads on here that posters are considering leaving Thailand in favour of Vietnam, dont people go there on holiday?

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There have been quite a few posters who resent the UK leaving the E.U , mainly E.U citizens who now cannot stay and live and work in the U.K and also their Country has to pay more to be in the E.U.

   They always look for negatives about the U.K leaving and want to British people to regret leaving , they would like us to start crying and go running back to the E.U "Please let us join again" .

   I must have mistaken you for one of those people

They're not hard to find

 

 

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/where-stands-support-for-brexit-now/

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

More than a bit oversized.

 

Who cares, it’s only tax payer’s money.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More than a bit oversized.

 

Who cares, it’s only tax payer’s money.

It will eventually be cost effective .

Once the regular planes are full , deduct the cost of the flight from the cost of housing the people , and we will be in profit 

10 minutes ago, sungod said:

I read constant threads on here that posters are considering leaving Thailand in favour of Vietnam, dont people go there on holiday?

A Vietnamese man is on the flight to Rwanda today , he claims that he owes money to people in Vietnam and they will kill him .

  Well, we don't want those Vietnamese killing him in the U.K , best off if he goes to Rwanda and hides there 

39 minutes ago, sungod said:

Why is it appalling?

Because it is. 

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Because it is. 

13 Children were allowed to sail across the English channel today from Calais to the U.K in dinghies, putting their lives at risk , as previously kids have drowned making that journey .

  I wonder whether Charlie thinks that thats appalling  as well ?

33 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

13 Children were allowed to sail across the English channel today from Calais to the U.K in dinghies, putting their lives at risk , as previously kids have drowned making that journey .

  I wonder whether Charlie thinks that thats appalling  as well ?

Source?

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Source?

So far, 92 adults and 12 children have been brought ashore by Border Force officials on Tuesday after attempting to cross the Channel. They said they came from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportations-one-asylum-seeker-loses-legal-challenge-against-removal-to-african-nation-12633715

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

So far, 92 adults and 12 children have been brought ashore by Border Force officials on Tuesday after attempting to cross the Channel. They said they came from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportations-one-asylum-seeker-loses-legal-challenge-against-removal-to-african-nation-12633715

Where is it written that they were "allowed" to sail across the English channel in dinghies?