Asylum plan 'very concerning' and would break international law - UN refugee agency

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

The solution is obvious: Stop the flow of illegal economic migrants at the source. Unfortunately, how the EU and/or the UK accomplish that goal is far from obvious.

Spot on. 

There was a lack of collective responsibility a long time ago probably due to the US being so far away.

The UN should have stepped up to the plate and tried to get nations to fund safe havens in north africa so sea crossings were not required. The movement of displaced people as result of war became a conduit for every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Had the war refugees been dealt with better the economic migrants would have been less of a challenge.

A viable solution now has become that much more difficult.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, transam said:

But the UK has never broken up,

You are perfectly free to believe that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland never broke up and was renamed.

Brexit has almost certainly confirmed reunification in due course with another change in name.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Why and how?

 

Moreover, unless this 'fast track' procedure has compromised security what's the problem?

 

Re the graph: Other than show that Illegal boat crossings are on the up what does it prove? At best, you are confusing correlation with causation.

 

If a border is open it is, by definition, easier to cross than one where controls operate. However, Germany has had an open border with all its' neighbours since 2007 - and to the West long before that - which predates Merkel's relaxing of restrictions.

 

The continual easing of restrictions in Germany suggests that intuitively it would become a more attractive destination for illegal migrants. Why this relaxation of restrictions in Germany would, in turn, make the UK more attractive isn't clear to me?

 

I strongly suspect that those attempting to reach the UK do so simply because it is the only country - for whatever reason - where they want to settle. To that end, for these people, what measures are taken in France, Germany or elsewhere is largely irrelevant; they will continue to try to reach the UK.

Why and how? Already explained - if you don't accept it ... up to you. 

 

Moreover, unless this 'fast track' procedure has compromised security what's the problem? Security is part of the problem with any accelerated vetting.

 

The graph shows the rising trend in recent years. Is the cause of that not and human trafficking assisted by free movement within the Schengen Zone?  

 

If a border is open it is, by definition, easier to cross than one where controls operate. However, Germany has had an open border with all its' neighbours since 2007 - and to the West long before that - which predates Merkel's relaxing of restrictions. Again the numbers in recent years, especially since 2015, are far higher than in 2007. No real comparison.

 

I strongly suspect that those attempting to reach the UK do so simply because it is the only country - for whatever reason - where they want to settle. To that end, for these people, what measures are taken in France, Germany or elsewhere is largely irrelevant; they will continue to try to reach the UK. Yes, especially while traffickers are allowed to operate in the EU.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Why and how? Already explained - if you don't accept it ... up to you. 

Not a question of acceptance; I don't see an explanation.

 

Perhaps you would be good enough to point out where it has been explained. Thanks.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Moreover, unless this 'fast track' procedure has compromised security what's the problem? Security is part of the problem with any accelerated vetting.

 

Evidence?

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

The graph shows the rising trend in recent years. Is the cause of that not and human trafficking assisted by free movement within the Schengen Zone?  

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here? 

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

If a border is open it is, by definition, easier to cross than one where controls operate. However, Germany has had an open border with all its' neighbours since 2007 - and to the West long before that - which predates Merkel's relaxing of restrictions. Again the numbers in recent years, especially since 2015, are far higher than in 2007. No real comparison.

 

Your original contention was that the relaxation in the laws governing illegal immigrants in Germany has lead to an increase in the number of illegal boat crossings in the channel. Again, where is the evidence to support this claim?

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

I strongly suspect that those attempting to reach the UK do so simply because it is the only country - for whatever reason - where they want to settle. To that end, for these people, what measures are taken in France, Germany or elsewhere is largely irrelevant; they will continue to try to reach the UK. Yes, especially while traffickers are allowed to operate in the EU.

Traffickers aren't allowed to operate in the EU. They do so illegally.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Any fast-track from migrant to citizen status within the EU entirely relevant to the Brexit issue.

 

Of course Merkel's measures encouraged people smugglers' to take advantage of the German/EU welcome mat and Schengen - it is one cause of the rising problem - Illegal economic migrants may have been arriving in the UK via the EU for "many years" but that number is now increasing exponentially, as these Channel crossing numbers show (below): 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511

 

You haven’t provided evidence that the increase in channel crossings has anything to do with Merkel’s refugee policies.

 

Please have a go, I could do with the amusement.

[onthedarkside]

Reported racist troll post and a number of replies leading off from it removed

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/11/2023 at 3:07 AM, StayinThailand2much said:

Funny. The UN never complains that other countries (e.g. China, Thailand, Japan, etc.) hardly ever take in asylum seekers. If China or Japan accepted, as a percentage of their population, as many asylum seekers as Western countries, probably all asylum seekers in the world could easily find a new home. After all, they are 'fleeing from war and other harm', right? So, why does the large majority have to be taken in by Western countries only?

Probably because western countries are IMO run by the woke, while countries in the rest of the world are not.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:28 PM, sandyf said:

Spot on. 

There was a lack of collective responsibility a long time ago probably due to the US being so far away.

The UN should have stepped up to the plate and tried to get nations to fund safe havens in north africa so sea crossings were not required. The movement of displaced people as result of war became a conduit for every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Had the war refugees been dealt with better the economic migrants would have been less of a challenge.

A viable solution now has become that much more difficult.

Fund them in Nth Africa and they will still come. The only way to stop people paying traffickers IMO is to make it so unattractive that no one will think paying criminals is a good idea. The Australians proved that it works.

[Hi from France]

On 3/11/2023 at 9:48 AM, transam said:

It's a shallow water landing craft, dump them to the exact place they got into the rubber thing......

it seem does some credulous brexiteers have been promised that, but no you can't do that to a sovereign state, declaration of war aside.

 

Now you left the EU you just have to keep them, it turns out

 

 

 

as a matter of fact just quitting the European convention on human rights (drafted by British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe) by making cross-border law enforcement harder will stop police cooperation and even threatens the TCA

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/08/eu-could-terminate-police-and-security-agreement-if-uk-quits-echr

 

 

so no @transam, here you can write whatever you want, but this is not going to happen: Boris promised but didn't deliver, and Rishi won't do it because the UK really needs to mend its economy and have good relations with its neighbours

 

 

 

The good news is the UK might put some post-Brexit customs arrangements in place (EU customs have been implemented in 2021 but sadly the UK didn't yet find the resources to do the same). In the same manner as your "made in France" blue passports, some of your post-Brexit border checks have been outsourced to a French company

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/british-operator-extremely-disappointed-french-rival-wins-hmrc/

 

 

 

 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fund them in Nth Africa and they will still come. The only way to stop people paying traffickers IMO is to make it so unattractive that no one will think paying criminals is a good idea. The Australians proved that it works.

One day you may realise the difference between war refugees and economic refugees.

Obviously you would have sent those from Ukraine back to where they came from.

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, Hi from France said:

Now you left the EU you just have to keep them, it turns out

as a matter of fact just quitting the European convention on human rights (drafted by British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe) by making cross-border law enforcement harder will stop police cooperation and even threatens the TCA

Never going to happen. 

When rational thought starts to prevail, MPs remember that the ECHR is embedded in the Belfast Agreement and when put comes to shove no one wants to go there. Reunification would be the only way out.

 

LONDON — Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and U.K. Tory leaders flirting with leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

https://www.politico.eu/article/tories-prime-minister-quit-echr-david-cameron-theresa-may-boris-johnson-liz-truss-rishi-sunak/

[vinny41]

48 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Never going to happen. 

When rational thought starts to prevail, MPs remember that the ECHR is embedded in the Belfast Agreement and when put comes to shove no one wants to go there. Reunification would be the only way out.

 

LONDON — Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and U.K. Tory leaders flirting with leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

https://www.politico.eu/article/tories-prime-minister-quit-echr-david-cameron-theresa-may-boris-johnson-liz-truss-rishi-sunak/

Not only the Tories Labour thought about leaving ECHR as shown here

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, pointed out that Britain would be in breach of its EU membership terms if it sought to wriggle out of its responsibilities under the separate ECHR.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

One day you may realise the difference between war refugees and economic refugees.

Obviously you would have sent those from Ukraine back to where they came from.

Where did I say that, so stop making it up!

My comment was about paying criminals to carry out illegal acts.

If a neighbouring country wishes to allow refugees to cross the border from Ukraine that is not the same as paying criminals to put one in a rubber boat to cross the Channel. Last time I looked the French were not killing them.

[Brickleberry]

Does anyone know which laws the UK might be breaking this time? Genuine question. I read the same headlines we all read, but I would like to make an informed opinion on the legal issue.

 

On a humanitarian note, people fleeing their countries are doing so for a reason. There must also be a reason for them trying to come here illegally. Is the legal way to difficult to navigate? Is it too expensive? Why are they risking their lives in the first place? Why are we sending France 500 million a year to deal with such a small number of immigrants?

 

There must be a better way.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Not only the Tories Labour thought about leaving ECHR as shown here

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, pointed out that Britain would be in breach of its EU membership terms if it sought to wriggle out of its responsibilities under the separate ECHR.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

And unlike the Tories, they  let the matter drop. Do you think that's a crucial difference?

[vinny41]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And unlike the Tories, they  let the matter drop. Do you think that's a crucial difference?

Reading the above link they didn't have a choice according to Goldsmith "Britain would be in breach of its EU membership terms"

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

Reading the above link they didn't have a choice according to Goldsmith "Britain would be in breach of its EU membership terms"

And the UK now has a choice?

"Under the Good Friday Agreement, signed 20 years ago in April 1998, the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."

https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/brexit-human-rights-and-the-good-friday-agreement

 

[James105]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And the UK now has a choice?

"Under the Good Friday Agreement, signed 20 years ago in April 1998, the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."

https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/brexit-human-rights-and-the-good-friday-agreement

 

The UK doesn't need to leave the ECHR, they just need to ignore their ruling as every single other member country does.

 

"Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments"

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/human-rights-court-ilgar-mammadov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/

[transam]

7 hours ago, Hi from France said:

it seem does some credulous brexiteers have been promised that, but no you can't do that to a sovereign state, declaration of war aside.

 

Now you left the EU you just have to keep them, it turns out

 

 

 

as a matter of fact just quitting the European convention on human rights (drafted by British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe) by making cross-border law enforcement harder will stop police cooperation and even threatens the TCA

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/08/eu-could-terminate-police-and-security-agreement-if-uk-quits-echr

 

 

so no @transam, here you can write whatever you want, but this is not going to happen: Boris promised but didn't deliver, and Rishi won't do it because the UK really needs to mend its economy and have good relations with its neighbours

 

 

 

The good news is the UK might put some post-Brexit customs arrangements in place (EU customs have been implemented in 2021 but sadly the UK didn't yet find the resources to do the same). In the same manner as your "made in France" blue passports, some of your post-Brexit border checks have been outsourced to a French company

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/british-operator-extremely-disappointed-french-rival-wins-hmrc/

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I don't read the Guardian stuff, secondly I avoid more Brexit stuff too, it is here, we get on with it, same as 1945...................????

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

The UK doesn't need to leave the ECHR, they just need to ignore their ruling as every single other member country does.

 

"Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments"

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/human-rights-court-ilgar-mammadov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/

But they are planning to leave.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Firstly, I don't read the Guardian stuff, secondly I avoid more Brexit stuff too, it is here, we get on with it, same as 1945...................????

There's a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think the same goes for ignorance of the facts. Especially when it's willful ignorance.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There's a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think the same goes for ignorance of the facts. Especially when it's willful ignorance.

Oh hello, PH, I see you are off-topic again, how tiresome...........

[vinny41]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And the UK now has a choice?

"Under the Good Friday Agreement, signed 20 years ago in April 1998, the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."

https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/brexit-human-rights-and-the-good-friday-agreement

 

That link appears to be an opinion piece nothing more 

[James105]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But they are planning to leave.

Sure, but that is just PR guff that will never, ever happen that gets people excited for whatever reason.   I'm sure the UK gov is well aware of how toothless the ECHR is but selectively chooses to implement judgements for things they wanted to do anyway and then laying the blame at the ECHR.   I was just pointing out that even if the ECHR rules against the UK gov there is no reason to follow the judgement, just like in the almost 10,000 instances from the other 47 members of the ECHR.   

[Jumbo1968]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

Does anyone know which laws the UK might be breaking this time? Genuine question. I read the same headlines we all read, but I would like to make an informed opinion on the legal issue.

 

On a humanitarian note, people fleeing their countries are doing so for a reason. There must also be a reason for them trying to come here illegally. Is the legal way to difficult to navigate? Is it too expensive? Why are they risking their lives in the first place? Why are we sending France 500 million a year to deal with such a small number of immigrants?

 

There must be a better way.

 

The legal way to apply for a visa is to apply from the country they are resident so obviously most can’t and probably would be refused if they didn’t put a reason, they can’t exactly say to claim asylum.

 

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, transam said:

Oh hello, PH, I see you are off-topic again, how tiresome...........

Actually, if I'm off topic then so are you. You're the person who stated that they don't consult a certain news source. How is that relevant?

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

That link appears to be an opinion piece nothing more 

A good opinion piece uses facts to buttress its case. Are you claiming it's untrue that "the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."?

[placeholder]

39 minutes ago, James105 said:

The UK doesn't need to leave the ECHR, they just need to ignore their ruling as every single other member country does.

 

"Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments"

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/human-rights-court-ilgar-mammadov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/

I should thank you for this link. Every time someone makes claims about the heavy and oppressive hand of the EU, and how the UK and other nations need to liberate themselves from it,  it will use your link.

[vinny41]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A good opinion piece uses facts to buttress its case. Are you claiming it's untrue that "the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."?

At the end of the day its still an opinion piece

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

At the end of the day its still an opinion piece

Repeating yourself much? It's clear you have no answer for the point i raised. Still...

 

The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 created a duty on the UK government to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law “with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including the power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on the grounds of inconsistency”.1 This incorporation was achieved through the HRA.2

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/23735/pdf/

 

The Human Rights Act, and the European Convention on Human Rights that it incorporates, are embedded as a key pillar of devolution. Convention rights run through the Good Friday Agreement, set the framework for post-conflict policing, and restrain the Northern Ireland Assembly.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/belfast-and-beyond/human-rights-act-overhaul-could-undermine-good-friday-agreement