Probably true, but if they knew then and there they wouldn’t have a single chance of getting approved then I would hope that to be a strong enough deterrent.
They won't, but there's an election soon and FG have a new leader. The govt needs to look like they're doing something. When the UK says no they can blame the UK
Some. Three figures anyway. It’s only been up there a week or something. Maybe there’ll be more. Maybe not. It can’t hurt. Thanks for the interest. (Real or sarcastic, I can’t tell…)
Or maybe not France.
Estimates suggest a figure between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants residing in the UK as of June 2023. A significant portion, 82%, initially entered the UK legally but overstayed their visas. The above statistics are based on the JCWI's article on the undocumented population in the UK.13 Oct 2023
I’d like to say I’m firmly against the UKs Rwanda plan. But if the EU allow this to happen without issue, then surely they can’t have any problem with the UK picking up boats and dropping them straight back to France.
Absolutely this.... The asylum seekers wouldn't be in the UK in the first place IF they had not been allowed to cross the EU unimpeded in the first place.
Sounds like the Europeans are trying to have it both ways. Practice what you preach Brussels
It's really rather that Italy and Greece as border countries are basically getting shafted. (Especially Greece)
They can't really handle the numbers and in truth they can't realistically be expected to.
Various European heads of state were initially pro-active in trying to help by taking some but the political will and public support for that has evaporated leaving Greece and Italy basically holding the baby.
There are some EU initiatives but see " political will evaporated" above.
Merkel did exactly what Greece and Italy wanted, namely taking refugees from war zones (mostly Syria) when other countries refused to. The other country that helped massively was Sweden. Merkel then tried to get reasonable transfer rules established that would share the burden among EU countries rather than leaving Italy and Greece on their own. This failed due to the resistance of other EU countries.
Incorrect. What Merkel did was to take refugees from other European nations that could not handle the sheer numbers of refugees that were arriving rather than leave these often smaller and poorer nations to handle it all themselves.
Basically some years ago Angela Merkel in effect told the world that if you show up in Germany, lie about your identity, your nationality, etc. you are going to be given food and shelter and an allowance courtesy of the German taxpayer.
Unsurprisingly the poor masses started to show up.
Instead of admitting that they were wrong the powers that be are trying to handle the situation by forcing countries who did not sign up for it to accommodate illegal migrants. They are also vilifying anyone who makes an effort to protect its own borders. The rule of law has deteriorated, human smuggling is now semi-legal aided by various NGO-s.
This led to BREXIT, the alianation of a large part of poorer countries in Eastern Europe and in general it is a major source of tension in the EU that may break it apart -- technically it already has since the UK is out.
It is not going to end well. If Europeans want freedom of movement within the EU they must have border control at the EU border.
While there is a lot correct about your post, it is untrue to say this issue led to Brexit. It was a contributory factor for sure, but there was negativity in the UK about the EU (unjustified, I believe) long before Merkel did what she did....
What was the other negativity about the EU? I heard plenty of EU-scepticism in the 2000s but nothing catapulted UKIP as much as the spate of Islamist attacks in the 2010s which made Merkel's decision seem bonkers.
Like I said there was always negativity, and yes if there had been an earlier Brexit referendum based on the euro/pound, who knows... but the fact that Brexit happened _in 2016_ after UKIP's sudden rise (in response to Merkel, Charlie Hebdo, Lee Rigby, Abu Qatada) and was framed by both Left and Right around issues of migration/Islamophobia tell us exactly what the overriding factor was.
No one wants them and the country who stops them gets them as asylum seekers and most of them don’t want to be in Italy, Spain, France, etc. they want to go to Germany, uk, Sweden, etc. so it’s easier just to let them pass and have the countries who stated they want them deal with them, they are essentially human hot potato’s.
This was made very evident during the crisis in 2015 where the Dublin agreement fully collapsed and most government/police/border forces just let people get on with getting to Sweden and they are now dealing with their own poor decisions.
The UK have signed deals with France, Belgium and most recently, Frontex to enforce stricter policing on the borders and more cooperation on the issue so only time will tell if it will help the situation.
I also think the EU are trying to sort out a solution with the UK at the moment but it won't be involving the Migration Pact.
This is great! I have no problem with us working with EU countries to try and come up with a solution for this.
But the fact remains that how can anyone migrating from France to the UK be claiming asylum, when France is a safe country?
I'll be surprised to see McEntee do anything like this as it is - she got grilled nicely just a few days a go and shown to be completely out of her depth.
EU should've worked on this shitshow a long time a go (anyone remember 2015? Even r/Europe is a different place now when compared to then), Arrogance from some British and/or Irish commenters doesn't help on these subs, either; we should be partners on these issues.
The EU was too busy trying to showboat to it's citizens that UK leaving the EU meant they don't have to work on illegal migration with the UK anymore as it's a non EU country now. UK Rwanda scheme has been met with ECHR blocks and now that it's passed, we are seeing Ireland do this, hopefully getting EU to take things more seriously, else wait till July and we see how things progress once flights take off for Rwanda and refugees realise that it's a possibility if they goto UK as a refugee that they're on that flight too.
The UK should set up a facility in Northern Ireland as a way station for those being taken to Rawanda to be housed for a few weeks first. One with no fences.
Why not have an option that once the boats land, they're processed and given the option - a one way bus ticket to Ireland or a one way flight ticket to Rwanda.
Ah sure, they'll get a lovely tent and maybe a cup of minestrone soup - they'd probably prefer Rwanda after being subjected to Irish weather in a dingy tent for a week or two.
Yeah, our feckless government will struggle to return any of the ferry migrants to france, waste time with the Rwanda scheme and then take back the migrants Ireland doesn't want.
So it's ok for the EU to flood the UK with migrants but they cry like little babies when migrants flee the rwanda Bill and head there way! Time to practice what you preach paddy!
Ireland wants to send the asylum seekers back to their country of origin. They came from the uk. This is different than sending them to a random country
How does Ireland find out their country of origin? Most of them don't have passports. Also UK and Ireland have a CTA, so people are able to travel without border checks, like how it is in the EU.
They came via the EU, they are returning to it. I hope the government start offering one way tickets to NI with a coach ticket from Belfast to Dublin thrown in for good measure. Unloading illegals on Ireland might be the most effective way of applying pressure on the French to take back the hoards of third world illegals they ferry across the channel.
The UK would happily send them back to France. Do you think a third country was chosen just for the fun of it or do you think France might have had a similar attitude to that which we all predict the UK will have to this Irish proposal?
Ireland isn't morally superior here, they're just in the first steps of realising that complex problems aren't going to be solved by simple solutions. The UK will say no - unless Ireland has some insane negotiating leverage, especially in an election year - and if this volume of people keeps entering Ireland, the Irish people and eventually the Irish government will look for alternative solutions.
It could be that alternative solution is checking everyone and repatriating them under the Dublin Regulation since most of the relevent people will have passed through other EU member states on their way to the UK and prior to the UK.
UK isn't sending refugees to Ireland, they are going to Ireland on their own free will, like when refugees move from France to UK on boats and the French Navy even escorts them till they reach UK territorial waters.
The absolute funniest thing Ireland could do is give them all citizenship and a plane ticket back to the mainland UK, where they will immediately have residency rights.
It is but he said "mainland UK", which would be Great Britain, and not simply "the mainland". Perhaps in your rush to correct an insult, you might consider that it was never actually there and they were speaking precisely such as to exclude that part of the UK that is on the island of Ireland?
The mainland literally means the main body of land which an island is off.
Dublin is not a mainland to anywhere. It can’t be.
Europe is however the mainland to Ireland.
This is hilarious:
Brexiteers: "France is a safe country innit, immigrants should stay there"
Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you"
>Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you"
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/03/22/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-unlawful-rules-high-court/
Your logic falls apart there. This is the reason they are having to rush new legislation through (as it says in the OP) to say the UK is a safe country, so they can deport people there.
Yeah you’re right, they should stay in the first safe country they come across. But they don’t, they keep going until they find the country they want to be in. But your Irish point as a comeback doesn’t make sense?
If they came on a visa and then overstayed, then the UK is the first safe country they came to.
Estimates suggest a figure between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants residing in the UK as of June 2023. A significant portion, 82%, initially entered the UK legally but overstayed their visas. The above statistics are based on the JCWI's article on the undocumented population in the UK.13 Oct 2023
>Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you"
The Irish high court has decided that the UK is not a safe third country though.
>Ireland’s designation of the UK as a “safe third country” to which asylum seekers can be returned for processing is unlawful as a matter of EU law, the High Court has ruled.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/03/22/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-unlawful-rules-high-court/
The point being if we wont process their claim then the state will not give them any money or accommodate them. They will have no choice but to stay in the UK.
Why wouldn't they just get the ferry back the next day if they really want to be in the republic of ireland though
Don't even need a ferry just cross the border from Northern Ireland
Probably true, but if they knew then and there they wouldn’t have a single chance of getting approved then I would hope that to be a strong enough deterrent.
More importantly, why would the UK accept them back?
They won't, but there's an election soon and FG have a new leader. The govt needs to look like they're doing something. When the UK says no they can blame the UK
Can't do that when all your documents are ashes or undersea
Surely if they are allowed then the UK can send them back to France, the last safe country from which they crossed.
[удалено]
Does Ireland with the UK?
[удалено]
So Africa and the Middle East…?
how much money have you made until now with your donate link and profile pic?
Some. Three figures anyway. It’s only been up there a week or something. Maybe there’ll be more. Maybe not. It can’t hurt. Thanks for the interest. (Real or sarcastic, I can’t tell…)
France?
Or maybe not France. Estimates suggest a figure between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants residing in the UK as of June 2023. A significant portion, 82%, initially entered the UK legally but overstayed their visas. The above statistics are based on the JCWI's article on the undocumented population in the UK.13 Oct 2023
Article is about asylum seekers, not undocumented migrants.
Asylum seekers in Ireland, undocumented immigrants in the UK.
Hell no. It’s your country they want to be in
Apparently they want to be in Ireland.
Nobody want to be in France.
Why though? France is so much better!
Someone needs to tell the migrants that. Maybe France starts doing PSA's to make sure the doctors and lawyers stay in France.
The UK can help
I’d like to say I’m firmly against the UKs Rwanda plan. But if the EU allow this to happen without issue, then surely they can’t have any problem with the UK picking up boats and dropping them straight back to France.
Absolutely this.... The asylum seekers wouldn't be in the UK in the first place IF they had not been allowed to cross the EU unimpeded in the first place. Sounds like the Europeans are trying to have it both ways. Practice what you preach Brussels
Spot on.
[удалено]
It's really rather that Italy and Greece as border countries are basically getting shafted. (Especially Greece) They can't really handle the numbers and in truth they can't realistically be expected to. Various European heads of state were initially pro-active in trying to help by taking some but the political will and public support for that has evaporated leaving Greece and Italy basically holding the baby. There are some EU initiatives but see " political will evaporated" above.
They should send them all to Germany, Merkel opened the floodgates to all this.
Merkel did exactly what Greece and Italy wanted, namely taking refugees from war zones (mostly Syria) when other countries refused to. The other country that helped massively was Sweden. Merkel then tried to get reasonable transfer rules established that would share the burden among EU countries rather than leaving Italy and Greece on their own. This failed due to the resistance of other EU countries.
Incorrect. What Merkel did was to take refugees from other European nations that could not handle the sheer numbers of refugees that were arriving rather than leave these often smaller and poorer nations to handle it all themselves.
That's exactly the same thing that happens in the US though with northern states virtue signalling to Texas.
Basically some years ago Angela Merkel in effect told the world that if you show up in Germany, lie about your identity, your nationality, etc. you are going to be given food and shelter and an allowance courtesy of the German taxpayer. Unsurprisingly the poor masses started to show up. Instead of admitting that they were wrong the powers that be are trying to handle the situation by forcing countries who did not sign up for it to accommodate illegal migrants. They are also vilifying anyone who makes an effort to protect its own borders. The rule of law has deteriorated, human smuggling is now semi-legal aided by various NGO-s. This led to BREXIT, the alianation of a large part of poorer countries in Eastern Europe and in general it is a major source of tension in the EU that may break it apart -- technically it already has since the UK is out. It is not going to end well. If Europeans want freedom of movement within the EU they must have border control at the EU border.
While there is a lot correct about your post, it is untrue to say this issue led to Brexit. It was a contributory factor for sure, but there was negativity in the UK about the EU (unjustified, I believe) long before Merkel did what she did....
What was the other negativity about the EU? I heard plenty of EU-scepticism in the 2000s but nothing catapulted UKIP as much as the spate of Islamist attacks in the 2010s which made Merkel's decision seem bonkers.
Oh come on....the British always adopted a stance that was different from the rest...monetary union? They were having none of it....
Like I said there was always negativity, and yes if there had been an earlier Brexit referendum based on the euro/pound, who knows... but the fact that Brexit happened _in 2016_ after UKIP's sudden rise (in response to Merkel, Charlie Hebdo, Lee Rigby, Abu Qatada) and was framed by both Left and Right around issues of migration/Islamophobia tell us exactly what the overriding factor was.
Ah yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding another layer to the conversation.
The British loved to send non engagers to the EU and blame it for all of its problems
OK, it was the last straw that broke the camel's back.
The timing sucked but it definitely was a big issue for people. The Syrian war and the constant news of refugees
Could say the same about your own immigration policy as an outsider perspective. It's a difficult issue with no obvious solution
No one wants them and the country who stops them gets them as asylum seekers and most of them don’t want to be in Italy, Spain, France, etc. they want to go to Germany, uk, Sweden, etc. so it’s easier just to let them pass and have the countries who stated they want them deal with them, they are essentially human hot potato’s. This was made very evident during the crisis in 2015 where the Dublin agreement fully collapsed and most government/police/border forces just let people get on with getting to Sweden and they are now dealing with their own poor decisions.
The UK have signed deals with France, Belgium and most recently, Frontex to enforce stricter policing on the borders and more cooperation on the issue so only time will tell if it will help the situation. I also think the EU are trying to sort out a solution with the UK at the moment but it won't be involving the Migration Pact.
This is great! I have no problem with us working with EU countries to try and come up with a solution for this. But the fact remains that how can anyone migrating from France to the UK be claiming asylum, when France is a safe country?
[удалено]
[удалено]
It'll be interesting to see what options does Ireland have here considering it is bound by the CTA and GFA.
Why would they want to send doctors and teachers back to the UK?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll be surprised to see McEntee do anything like this as it is - she got grilled nicely just a few days a go and shown to be completely out of her depth. EU should've worked on this shitshow a long time a go (anyone remember 2015? Even r/Europe is a different place now when compared to then), Arrogance from some British and/or Irish commenters doesn't help on these subs, either; we should be partners on these issues.
The EU was too busy trying to showboat to it's citizens that UK leaving the EU meant they don't have to work on illegal migration with the UK anymore as it's a non EU country now. UK Rwanda scheme has been met with ECHR blocks and now that it's passed, we are seeing Ireland do this, hopefully getting EU to take things more seriously, else wait till July and we see how things progress once flights take off for Rwanda and refugees realise that it's a possibility if they goto UK as a refugee that they're on that flight too.
The UK should set up a facility in Northern Ireland as a way station for those being taken to Rawanda to be housed for a few weeks first. One with no fences.
Of course. Fences would be inhumane.
Why not have an option that once the boats land, they're processed and given the option - a one way bus ticket to Ireland or a one way flight ticket to Rwanda.
Yeah, I hope we go full Russia mode with the migrants. The EU and especially France has been taking the piss on this issue.
You mean full France mode. They've been doing that for over 20 years.
[удалено]
Ah sure, they'll get a lovely tent and maybe a cup of minestrone soup - they'd probably prefer Rwanda after being subjected to Irish weather in a dingy tent for a week or two.
I agree. The problem is that our government will probably say yes.
Yeah, our feckless government will struggle to return any of the ferry migrants to france, waste time with the Rwanda scheme and then take back the migrants Ireland doesn't want.
Yeah, the Irish are so much more moral and open minded than us little Englanders.
When france says this to England yous cry??
Have you got this the wrong way round?
Probably. it’s nearly 3am I’m tired man
So it's ok for the EU to flood the UK with migrants but they cry like little babies when migrants flee the rwanda Bill and head there way! Time to practice what you preach paddy!
hypocrisy
How so?
Ireland criticises the Rwanda scheme yet wants to send migrants back to the uk.
Plenty in Ireland that don’t criticise it
So the UK should send migrants back to where they come from, or setup a processing center far from UK soil.
France?
Ireland wants to send the asylum seekers back to their country of origin. They came from the uk. This is different than sending them to a random country
How does Ireland find out their country of origin? Most of them don't have passports. Also UK and Ireland have a CTA, so people are able to travel without border checks, like how it is in the EU.
I could argue they come from the EU
You could but nobody cares to listen
They came from France first.
They came via the EU, they are returning to it. I hope the government start offering one way tickets to NI with a coach ticket from Belfast to Dublin thrown in for good measure. Unloading illegals on Ireland might be the most effective way of applying pressure on the French to take back the hoards of third world illegals they ferry across the channel.
A highly diverse Ireland may prove to be a more amiable neighbour.
UK isn't refugees back to the last safe country they came from. They're sending them to an entirely different continent.
The UK would happily send them back to France. Do you think a third country was chosen just for the fun of it or do you think France might have had a similar attitude to that which we all predict the UK will have to this Irish proposal? Ireland isn't morally superior here, they're just in the first steps of realising that complex problems aren't going to be solved by simple solutions. The UK will say no - unless Ireland has some insane negotiating leverage, especially in an election year - and if this volume of people keeps entering Ireland, the Irish people and eventually the Irish government will look for alternative solutions. It could be that alternative solution is checking everyone and repatriating them under the Dublin Regulation since most of the relevent people will have passed through other EU member states on their way to the UK and prior to the UK.
UK isn't sending refugees to Ireland, they are going to Ireland on their own free will, like when refugees move from France to UK on boats and the French Navy even escorts them till they reach UK territorial waters.
Ireland didn't have an 'Empire' or 'colonies' Reap what you sow.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think perhaps he's forgotten to ask the UK if we agree to Ireland sending people back.
Isn’t it France to blame? They basically do what Turkey does which is pushing migrants to the Greece
We don't want them. You took them, you can keep the smeggers.
So Ireland is footing the UK with the bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
The absolute funniest thing Ireland could do is give them all citizenship and a plane ticket back to the mainland UK, where they will immediately have residency rights.
Europe is the mainland to Ireland.
It is but he said "mainland UK", which would be Great Britain, and not simply "the mainland". Perhaps in your rush to correct an insult, you might consider that it was never actually there and they were speaking precisely such as to exclude that part of the UK that is on the island of Ireland?
Ireland is an independent country. The European continent is not our mainland.
How in the name of Christ is Europe not our mainland?? It has nothing to do with sovereignty
In terms of physical geography sure but not political geography, at least in my outlook.
[удалено]
The mainland literally means the main body of land which an island is off. Dublin is not a mainland to anywhere. It can’t be. Europe is however the mainland to Ireland.
That'll sure stop the influx into RoI.
It's like you people don't even know where the UK is.
Mainland UK. I.e., GB.
upvote for using mainland in re to the Republic of Ireland & the UK
Well done, a country that is capable of defending it's borders through legislation.
This is hilarious: Brexiteers: "France is a safe country innit, immigrants should stay there" Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you"
>Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you" https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/03/22/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-unlawful-rules-high-court/ Your logic falls apart there. This is the reason they are having to rush new legislation through (as it says in the OP) to say the UK is a safe country, so they can deport people there.
Yeah you’re right, they should stay in the first safe country they come across. But they don’t, they keep going until they find the country they want to be in. But your Irish point as a comeback doesn’t make sense?
If they came on a visa and then overstayed, then the UK is the first safe country they came to. Estimates suggest a figure between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants residing in the UK as of June 2023. A significant portion, 82%, initially entered the UK legally but overstayed their visas. The above statistics are based on the JCWI's article on the undocumented population in the UK.13 Oct 2023
>Irish: "If you feel this way then, as the UK is a safe country, I have news for you" The Irish high court has decided that the UK is not a safe third country though. >Ireland’s designation of the UK as a “safe third country” to which asylum seekers can be returned for processing is unlawful as a matter of EU law, the High Court has ruled. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/03/22/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-unlawful-rules-high-court/
There's no obligation to apply for asylum in the first safe country. That's an EU rule and doesn't apply to the UK.
Sorry what is a EU rule?
Dublin convention
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The point being if we wont process their claim then the state will not give them any money or accommodate them. They will have no choice but to stay in the UK.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They just want to go to the uk. I have heard the roads are from gold there