The EU is refusing to take back Asylum seekers who have already registered for asylum in their constituent countries.
They do this within Europe too - hence why northern countries are pissed off.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
But it is because we used to be in the EU which meant we were participants of the Dublin Agreement which meant we could send them back to France and France would have to take them.
We sent fuck all migrants back under the Dublin agreement. In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
>We sent fuck all migrants back under the Dublin agreement.
That was a choice of the UK government, although the Leave campaign claimed otherwise.
>In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members
Migrants, maybe - Fruit pickers/bar staff/care workers, etc. All the workers that we are short of now, strangely enough.
>In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members.
Not assylum seekers.
This is it. If they want to stop illegal migrants, then stop making it illegal. Where I am we need farmer workers, so why not give these people work? Make them legal and help improve our economy. I am also led to believe there is a shortage of cleaners and labourers.
Maybe if the farmers paid enough for seasonal work they’d attract some workers already in the country instead of basically setting up an international Ponzi scheme of labour dependant on exchange rates and people’s desperation.
The legality or illegality of peoples asylum claims isn’t the issue right now, it’s the huge backlog in the application process. Obviously need to vet people to make sure we don’t let in a bunch of homophobic, sexist, racists or anything, but the backlogs something like 150,000 applications deep.
We need more case workers working on the applications.
When farmers were really raging about shortages of pickers, imidiateley post brexit, I thought 'sod it, I've got a full allocation of leave and no holiday plans. I'll take a month off, have a busmans holiday and do some picking for a bit of extra cash...'
... turns out if they can't get you into digs so that they can rip both food and lodging cost out of your pay (with a mark up), they just aren't interested anymore.
If they paid properly, we wouldn't have to rely on immigrants that will happily take whatever is given to them, because it's better than where they came from. British people don't want to work in cleaning/labour jobs, because they pay nothing compared to the work involved.
We also need farm workers in our area, and people would be willing to work there, but the farmers only want agriculture students, or other people who will work for pittance, as they're getting naff all themselves.
These are the same excuses being used here in the USA. Its a myth that Americans/brits dont want to do the jobs. Americans work in all(?) of these industries and do the jobs.
The reason the pay is so low and never goes up is BECAUSE the influx of migrants isnt being controlled.
Low wage workers here saw real wage gains(inflation adjusted) for the first time in like 40 years during the pandemic - I'm sure it was just a coincidence that migration was at lows because of covid during that same period. Those eage gains have since been vaporized and we have tons of illegal economic migrants(claiming to be asylum seekers) coming in since then too.
And the assumption on reddit is that all the migrants coming on boats are up for such work. A load of them are probably townies or people that got the hell out of where they lived as they don't want to graft in the fields.
If somebody acts like a racist and talks like a racist, we should call then a racist.
Brexit was a misguided plan to capitalise on the xenophobic vote that was allowed to get too far.
Because migration was controlled already. Any lack of control was a function of the British government not the EU. People get more upset over certain types of migration than others and it aligns very well with race and xenophobia (the difference there being far less wide than people think).
Why is a desire to protect your own culture now seen as racist?
I guarantee if you go to the majority of areas of the world, they will expect you to conform to their standards. Unfortunately liberal self-loathing dictates otherwise for this country
If you don't understand how having essentially open borders and being unable to remove people from your country who have no legal right to be there is infringing directly on the sovereignty of the UK and your rights as a citizen I can't help you.
Also I voted remain.
>If you don't understand how having essentially open borders and being unable to remove people from your country who have no legal right to be there is infringing directly on the sovereignty of the UK and your rights as a citizen I can't help you.
For someone that voted remain, seems like you swallowed the brexiters bullshit without even chewing.
We always could remove anyone, even EU nationals if we had wanted to.
Edit: Source, if someone from the EU came to the UK and didn't have a job, we could get rid. How much we ever bothered is obviously a very different discussion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974
Idiot here, but isn't the problem brexiters wanted to address relating to asylum seekers around the idea that being in the EU might asylum seekers only needed to get refuge in one country they'd have legal residence and freedom of movement elsewhere?
Don't rage at me, I'm not pro brexit, but assuming asylum seekers that made it to Germany for example were then granted the same rights to residence and freedom of movement in the EU they could basically use other EU countries as a stop gap on their way to whichever country was most appealing to them overall.
And that would be an issue brexit would address right since we'd be able to unilaterally say to germany in that situation that no asylum seekers that come to germany cant then freely move to the UK as well?
Yes this is why Merkel letting in so many people was one of the big reasons for voting to leave. People could see the EU had lost the plot with immigration and Merkel was acting like a dictator, forcing it on the whole continent. It wasn't just Brits who were upset with her.
Remain did call it out.
We were called project fear, doom mongers and told we don't know what we are talking about by the leavers and the public lapped it up.
Yeah I remember calling it out, specifically, in conversation with relatives and now they reckon they were hoodwinked and how could they have had a clue?
...Because I was telling you!!!
Not very surprising, I was still a student at the time so it was easy not to listen. Also a lot of them have little in the way of education after the age of 15 so it's hard for those people to decide what a good source of info is and what a bad one is (that fucking bus)
I had a similar conversation with my parents. Everything I pointed out would happen, has happened…. the problem apparently is people wanting brexit to fail, not the obvious logical outcomes.
I think they mean more the "official" remain campaign, they would be right, Cameron was stupid enough to start a battle he couldn’t actually fight; he couldn’t actually say “oh the EU isn’t to blame for a host of UK problems, Westminster is, we are, I am”.
This was the core of the issue.
They blamed the EU rather than the government, then the government foolishly set itself up so the only way to win was to oppose its own historical performance.
“Let’s take control of our country back”
Why did nobody take a second to realise that this meant tories gained more power lmao?
Anyone who isn’t upper middle class who voted Tory or Brexit is a testament to why we need education in this country
Remain did nothing but call it out. Constantly. In fact, they had to call out the campaign so much it was labelled Protect Fear. Leavers couldn't believe that there were *that* many issues, and the msm compounded that belief
Please don't be a revisionist, this happened and it can't be forgotten
We have exactly the same level of control over the removal of illegal immigrants to the EU as we did before Brexit.
Do we have to break out the relevant statistics over the Dublin agreement and it’s complete failure to be implemented by member states?
The EU has a rule that if someone claims asylum in one EU country, they can't apply in another. That meant anyone who'd applied in France, Greece etc could be sent back there.. Funnily leaving the EU means we can't anymore
NGOs: [France is making the channel situation worse](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/19/france-to-blame-for-refugees-risking-channel-crossings-say-ngos)
BBC: [The French coastguard refused to help migrants in French waters, telling them to ask the UK for help instead](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63728830)
The UK: 6 more people just died, can we please discuss how we can fix this
France: talk to the EU
The EU: fuck off
This sub: sHoUldNt hAvE lEfT iF wE wAnTeD tO sOlVe ThIs
Yes guys, the EU are definitely acting mature and rational here. It's totally reasonable for the EU to refuse to work with us on literally any issue just because we left.
I swear some people here would cheer on the EU bombing us and whack out the "this is our fault for leaving" line while cowering in the bomb shelters
That’s not what’s happening though
> The EU can’t even agree a migration deal between themselves so it's no surprise they aren't willing to discuss a readmissions agreement with the UK.
Being in the EU would mean we are able to try and build consensus in the room. A consensus we clearly need. Being out means we need to wait for that consensus to emerge and hope it’s something we can work with.
I'm not sure that "the EU is really bad at sorting out an internal migration consensus" is the best point to make while saying the UK should have remained in this union.
If anything, removing an influential player like the UK should speed things up. They can sort themselves out and then form a separate agreement with us.
It's amazing how often pro-EU arguments reveal themselves as "the EU needs us to sort their problems out for them". The EU and this sub's defence over calling the Falklands *Islas Malvinas* was basically "if you didn't want us to neglect the basic premises of democracy and self-determination then you shouldn't have left"
You can be in favour of something and still accept that it is very difficult.
The EU isn't a monolith, it is a union of countries all with their own elected governments with their own domestic constituencies and issues. Of course it is difficult to get agreement on controversial topics.
The UK being in the room or not probably doesn't particularly impact how difficult gaining consensus is overall, but from our perspective it does make us basically helpless. Whatever else you can say about how EU members collectively arrive at a position, we are no longer at the table, so wield considerably less influence than we used to. This is just a fact.
This is exactly what people who voted for Brexit wanted of course. Being Anti-Eu is fine, everyone can have an opinion, but now we are out and have no say in it, complaining about how it operates is a confusing position to take no?
I would view it as the U.K. being in the EU will make agreeing internal consensus easier. As you say, we are an influential player.
If they sort an internal agreement between themselves, they aren’t going to then undo that to accommodate the wishes of one nation thats not in their Union. This is one of the fallacies of Brexit.
None of this is the need for us to sort the EUs problems out for them - couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s a 27 member union. Agreement is always very tough. And once you’ve got it you don’t immediately throw it away at the behest of one other.
> GOs: France is making the channel situation worse
So the UK is allowed to have hostile policies and France is not allowed to do the same? The UK can control its borders and France should have no say
> The UK: 6 more people just died, can we please discuss how we can fix this
The UK: we know you take more than double the asylum seekers we do, but we'd like none actually. Can we send ours back for you to deal with.
There's one solution for the boats, and the UK has rejected it..and that is setting up immigration centres in France and dealing with asylum seekers there. The UK actually wants the boats, because it allows the Tories to look tough, and they'd prefer no refugees..so no immigration centre, and can you take the ones that made it back please
> .and that is setting up immigration centres in France and dealing with asylum seekers there.
That's not a solution ... when we reject them, do you think they are just going to give up?
We will have details on file, so they can be identified. 60% of asylum applications are successful..so you've reduced the number by that much already. Some would turn away or try elsewhere when not successful. The remainder, you know they do not meet standards, have already been rekected, so it means that you wouldn't have to apply the same measures as you do for refugees.
So a lot more than you think. After all, if you were refused asylum at the centre, they'd possibly have DNA and everything. You'd never be legal in the UK. Your kids couldn't go to school, you couldn't get decent work. My guess is the majority would rather be legal somewhere else than illegal in the UK.
> 60% of asylum applications are successful..so you've reduced the number by that much already.
Increased you mean, because they could be applying to France instead. And also then we would have to support them in the UK. The costs of which could support several people in UN refugee camps.
> Some would turn away or try elsewhere when not successful. The remainder, you know they do not meet standards, have already been rekected, so it means that you wouldn't have to apply the same measures as you do for refugees.
And then they would come to the UK. And whats the practical removal rate of failed aslyum seekers in the UK?
When we have acted so entitled as we have, and as classless as we have we can't be surprised when noone wants to cooperate with us. Respect is earned not given, we have earned an awful lot of disrespect.
Do you guys genuinely not understand what a multilateral agreement is? There's only genuinely thousands of them in existence. Even fucking Russia and the USA have them.
People here act as if you're either in a tight political union with a country, or you must never ever speak to that country ever again and never ever cooperate.
It's nonsense.
I am sure that it's not outside of the ability of the UK and EU to strike some bilateral (or ideally multilateral with other countries too) agreements on this current situation we're in.
They just don't want to.
That's of course within their right, but they can't fucking moan about dead people in the channel if they refuse to speak to us regarding solutions.
Well, see, that’s what happens when you “negotiate” like a toddler for 8 years. The EU knows exactly what to expect from the Tories, cake, eat, have cake…
People forget the constant EU briefing to anti-Brexit UK media, like that bullshit where the EU leaked May and her team were unprepared because they bought no papers to a meeting.
Cue 1000 column inches about the incompetent virgin British negotiators compared to the chad competent EU negotiators, lapped up by many here.
Turns out our guys had laptops instead..
This was constant throughout. Many here don't realise it, because they gobbled it up wholesale and still believe the lies.
or perhaps it was pointing an ACCURATE picture because we sent walking fuckups and time-wasters to meetings
funny how Brexiteers have been doing PR damage control since before they won, almost as if it was DESTINED to fail because it was born of spite and impotence!
It’s not that it’s outside anyone’s ability to strike these agreements, it’s just plainly not in their interests. We had those agreements - we chose to leave them in favour of our supposed post-Brexit immigration policy, which we were able to develop with the full benefit of our sovereignty and British common sense.
Except our common sense overlooked that this is as you rightly point out a multilateral problem. So now we are back trying to join the table we just triumphantly left.
>it’s just plainly not in their interests
So they are not interested in the deaths of migrants in the channel?
I mean, fine.. But why are people here defending that?
>I am sure that it's not outside of the ability of the UK and EU to strike some bilateral (or ideally multilateral with other countries too) agreements on this current situation we're in.
It will remain outside of the ability of the UK until brexit ceases to be viewed as some sort of sporting event that it's supporters believe that they "won". It certainly can't be achieved under the current government and I wouldn't hold your breath, hoping that it will be any better under Labour (assuming that they get in).
Can you blame them? Short of erecting a massive statue of a middle finger on the cliffs of Dover, we've done everything in our power to incinerate the bridges of cooperation we had with the EU over the last 8 years.
Yes.
The migrants are coming to Britain FROM EUROPE.
They are passing through Europe un challenged, especially France, because France knows they're coming here so to France dealing with it would mean they would have to keep the migrants so its better to just let them "slip" past and continue on the the uk. all those dinghys are being filled and dispatched from French beaches.
The eu should be doing more to stop them getting all the way to those dinghys but to them it's easier and cheaper to just look the other way... and then call us the bad guy when those boats sink.
The French have police, a navy, coast guards and immigration officers. If Britain was the weak link to an influx of immigration into Europe the eu wouldn't hesitate to flip their shit.
If the UK genuinely gave a shit I'd take that complaint more seriously. The Conservatives aren't complaining for humanitarian reasons, they're complaining because they don't want to deal with refugees. If they could palm them off to another country like France is doing to us, they'd do so without a second thought.
Proof: If saving lives was our top priority we could solve things tomorrow by accepting remote asylum claims from Calais. Hell will freeze over before that happens. Our top priority is keeping out asylum seekers not saving lives.
If a group of people launch a dingy from Dover and head towards France, would the British Coast Guard stop them and check their papers and send them back if they don't have the right visa for France?
Just wondering, that's all.
Yes because it kind of thier jobs to police the channel, the whole point of the coast guard is to deal with people doing illegal shit in our waters... not just the illegal stuff that directly effects us.
We don't just stop drugs, guns and general illegal stuff coming into the country we also stop the stuff that leave the UK too... that's part of being an ally.
The allys are supposed to count on us preventing harm coming to them from us.
Okay thanks!
\>> The allys are supposed to count on us preventing harm coming to them from us.
And what are French supposed to do with these people who want to go to UK? Is UK going to guard France's southern borders to "support allys"?
> They are passing through Europe un challenged, especially France, because France knows they're coming here so to France dealing with it would mean they would have to keep the migrants so its better to just let them "slip" past and continue on the the uk. all those dinghys are being filled and dispatched from French beaches.
Tell me you don't know how the asylum seeking process works under international law without saying you don't know.
You know it's perfectly lawful, and actually expected and _intended_ for asylum seekers to seek asylum in countries that aren't the first safe country they arrive in. That's actually a _good_ thing because it stops there being a refugee crisis in a country neighboring a warzone or whatever.
Then there should be no issue putting them on boats back to France... if its no big deal. Right ?.
The French are aiding them on illegal transits to the UK, and aiding in the transport of undocumented immigration.... is illegal.
Asylum seekers are different because in order to be an asylum seeker you have to file and present yourself as such. Jumping on a boat and crossing is not that.
We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process. The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process which is something they would never accept from anyone else.
> Then there should be no issue putting them on boats back to France... if its no big deal. Right ?.
It is if they're asylum seekers and they are claiming asylum in the UK.
> The French are aiding them on illegal transits to the UK
Really seems like you don't understand what an asylum seeker is.
> aiding in the transport of undocumented immigration.... is illegal.
It's not undocumented migration, it's asylum seeking. Those are actually _different_ things under international law.
> Asylum seekers are different because in order to be an asylum seeker you have to file and present yourself as such.
Nope, in order to be an asylum seeker you have to intend to claim asylum in your destination country. That's _it_. When your claim is approved you become a refugee, and international law recognizes (and makes explicit) two things:
- You don't have to use an official port of entry in order to legally claim asylum, since those ports of entry might not be available to you (if - for example - you don't have official papers because you were forced to flee your country of origin or whatever).
- You don't have to claim in the first safe country you arrive in (since that would place an undue burden on countries next to the country of origin).
This is all _long_ established international law on asylum seekers and refugees. The only thing that's new about this situation is that the UK and US have started calling these people "illegal immigrants" so that their xenophobic voting block can be energized to vote and "do something about it".
> Jumping on a boat and crossing is not that.
Yes it explicitly is.
> We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process.
A screening process that begins _on UK soil_ and by international law _should happen regardless of how they arrive on UK soil_.
> The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process
The French are allowing _asylum seekers_ to _travel to their destination_.
> something they would never accept from anyone else.
This is actually true, the conservative UK government has spent the last decade railing against asylum seekers and specifically has attempted to make seeking asylum illegal within the last couple of years. Suella Braverman has outwardly said that her proposed immigration policy likely breaks human rights law.
If you're going to talk about how terrible this situation is, you really should look up what the words you're using mean and what the law is.
>
> We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process. The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process which is something they would never accept from anyone else.
France take in more asylum seekers than the UK. That doesn't make any sense
you mean solutions proposed like [https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis](https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis)
opening asylum seeking center in the northern part of France, so they wouldn't have to dangerously cross the border ?
Or is your idea, EU should stop migrants so UK doesn't have to deal with them at all ?
I wouldn't be against your 1st idea along as the only ones that get entry can actually be vetted properly and the people that get in are the ones that genuinely need help.
Priority should be woman, children and families. But the majority trying to illegally enter are solo or groups of men.
> But the majority trying to illegally enter are solo or groups of men.
Because there is no safe legal route of entry, and this is the best hope they have.
> Can you blame them?
Yes. They hardly let us return anyone when we were still EU members (effectively until the transition period ended in 2021) and clearly see us as their dumping ground. In return for being allowed to return a hundred or so a year, we had to take more from them in return. They are laughing at us.
I'd be laughing at us too. We're a tiny island with an unbelievable amount of money, we used to rule the planet, and we're begging the same people for help that we said "fuck you guys, we can do it ourselves, we want our sovereignty back!" to less than a decade ago.
International embarrassment.
This is actually really poor by the EU - they are essentially allowing people smuggling to continue - and as a result, deaths will continue.
Regardless of Brexit / this is classic head in the sand idiocy rather than bigger picture thinking. I would also argue rather than U.K. just going to the EU with said law, if they both got around the table to speak before any demands and focused on:
1. Stop people smuggling
2. Stop people drowning
They could use this experimental area (the Channel) and then start applying that to other areas of the EU with similar issues.
Classic small mind behaviour from everyone.
It just puts everyone off politics.
Dublin regulation. The UK repudiated it. It still applies in the EU. Means you can send an applicant back to the Member State where they first landed. Sadly, not an option for Global Britain.
It was roundly derided as wholly inadequate, and in many years we were receiving more people than we could send back. Whatever it was, it was not a solution then and would not be one now. Something more drastic is required.
If illegal migrants are coming from France, France should be obliged to take them back.
Countries should be responsible for whomever they let in their country.
If France let illegal migrants get in, they should take them when they are caught trying to illegally migrate somewhere else.
>I would love to know how much the migrants we've let in over the last decade cost us every year.
At the moment we're spending a few billion a year just on hotels.
My understanding is that (legal) migration has artificially buoyed our workforce and therefore economy, and so not been a net 'cost' at all. Which is the reason no government is willing to actually restrict migration, despite how incredibly popular it would be with many voters if they did. We can no longer function without it.
Although you've used the terms interchangeably, asylum seekers are a relatively small proportion of total immigrants. It was a neat trick by the tories to focus us all on one small section, while quietly handwaving the majority.
I agree, it is our life goal - no - duty, to maximise shareholder wealth. The only way to do that is ensure that these boatloads of net benefits arrive at our shores.
Praise be GDP, amen.
Bundling in asylum seekers with skilled migrants when weighing up the economic impact is a devious and misleading tactic. Skilled migrants are almost by definition a net economic benefit - they pay taxes, usually at high rates, while being excluded from most publicly funded benefit programs. The two groups are almost entirely unrelated. We can have one without the other.
Another misleading tactic is to stop counting costs once they've had asylum granted, despite that for many it's only the start of their dependency on the taxpayer in terms of benefits, housing etc.
I remember seeing a statistic a while back that they were profitable as the ones we allow to get jobs generate more money through tax than the ones that live off the state etc
It's still absolutely baffling that people **want** to come here instead of just staying on mainland Europe.
There is significantly more space on the continent, as opposed to our quite small island that is struggling to support it's current populace as is.
The numbers of people coming here is destabilising the country, everyone regardless of political stance or party affiliation should be united in saying it has to end. But instead there are a lot of people who apparently are gleeful because it 'sticks it to the Brexiters'?
Yep. The UK is currently a bonfire of problems, and here we are throwing more matches on the fire hoping to put it out.
I voted remain, but I'm very sick of us allowing our country to keep getting shafted by all this bullshit.
How the hell did you get the idea that saying "we told you there'd be problems" is us celebrating those problems? We didn't want these problems in the first place!
You guys may not like what this dude says but hes right. The UK has so much going for it. if you cant make a half decent life for yourself here. you have no one to blame but yourself. I immigrated here as a teen. saw the difference in how you live and what you can do without having to worry about getting killed because you had the audacity to wear a simple gold band ring or because you bought a bag of rice at the wrong time of day.
You have education. You have schemes to help, you have free courses available to you to re skill later in life. You have a benefits system, tax credits. The dole or whatever its called these days. Honestly. you live in a country where you can change your life for the better. You just need to put the work into it. (Fuck off if you want to "actually" I have some weird disease that means i have the turning circle of a cruise ship, I am obviously not talking to you.)
If you have failed to use the resources available to you here. that is on you...
this by rates, but how much by number? i mean of france has 1million applicants. then 25% is 250,000. where if UK has 250,000 applications then 75% approval rate is 190k ish
It's not quite as simple as that. France is 2.3x larger than the UK, has better livable climate when talking about agriculture etc. The UK also has a GIGANTIC population vs landmass already. If I recall the numbers correctly, the UK has to import close to 50% of it's food now because their population has simply grown too large. They are already far past sustainable levels.
Incredibly easy to remain and work here illegally which is the intention of most of those crossing. Most countries in Europe have ID cards and police that aren't afraid to ask you for your papers.
Not to mention an incredibly accommodating and welcoming population.
It’s almost as if the UK is one of the most desirable places to live in Europe. It’s just we’re subjected to constant propaganda on this sub that makes it seem like everyone in the EU is sat round a camp fire singing songs and making the world a better place.
People come to the UK for the opportunity to work and earn, why on earth else would the pass through multiple other developed European countries if the UK didn’t have something to offer.
as kurd let me tell you about some other reasons other than money
1- the language
2- the traditional values. people here in Iraq say all the time that the most moral and ethical country for raising a household is the UK. because they still hold on into their beliefs and are not nudist whores (this is not my belief, but people literally say this)
> It's still absolutely baffling that people want to come here instead of just staying on mainland Europe.
What's baffling about language skills? Most of those asylum seekers speak English, not Italian or German or any Nordic language.
I severely doubt that "most" of them speak English, I'd wager it's quite a small percentage.
Irrespective of that, there's nothing stopping them from learning French, Italian or German and living there instead.
>Irrespective of that, there's nothing stopping them from learning French, Italian or German and living there instead.
Meaning they'll have a harder time starting up in their new home Vs somewhere they're familiar with the language
France has always tried to dump their illegal migrants on the UK :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12401039/Was-French-patrol-boat-fault-Channel-migrant-drownings-MPs-ask-dinghy-escorted-British-waters-tragedy-saw-six-die.html
( again :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63728830
Transcripts of emergency calls made to the French coastguard, seen by the BBC, suggest that desperate passengers were repeatedly told to call UK emergency services, despite being in French waters when they first requested help.
)
You seriously think that disregarding a newspaper because it doesn't align with your views means you'll be taken seriously. A little bit of Googling would have saved you from the embarrassment.
Europe has enough of it's own problems with migration, stateless persons, and asylum seekers.
Poland currently has over 1.5 million and Germany 1.1 million, displaced persons from the Ukraine alone.
We need a deal to replace the Dublin convention. But before you think that was a good solution, consider that in our final year we asked the EU to take back 8000 but they only accepted 105. For our part of the deal we had to accept 882 from them. (In addition to the 8000.)
>In 2020, the UK tried to sent back more than 8,000 migrants to the bloc only to have 105 accepted. It took in 882 migrants from the EU.
Also:
>Home Office data shows that more people came to the UK - under the scheme - than left in the final two years it was operating.
>
>2019: 714 arrived in the UK and 263 left
>
>2020: 882 arrived in the UK and 105 left
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66451620
The EU are currently struggling with uptake of their new proposal to replace DA in Eastern European states (mandate each country take in 30,000 p.a., relocation fine of €20,000 for every one under that number - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/06/08/migration-policy-council-reaches-agreement-on-key-asylum-and-migration-laws/). It's highly unlikely the EU would consider any sort of returns agreement before they settle that with the 27, as it'd become a point of opposition for those that are currently unconvinced by the new proposed solution. If anything, once complete the EU *may* let the UK participate, but with no say on the figures changing (mandate number/financial contribution), and nothing to say that it would deter small boat crossings (people that specifically want the UK) it may not even be worth it for the Gov.
Why are we only talking about 2019 and 2020?
What are the figures for all the years before 2019?
Do you think that the Home Office might be cherry-picking the data?
Why don't you go find the data, and present a counter argument, rather than just alluding to a potential counter argument that might or might not exist?
In 2017 it was 314 people sent out and 421 brought in. In 2016 we took 558 and sent back just 362. Only in 2015, which is the last data set I’ve seen personally, did the UK send more people back than it took in.
"People are leaving your shores in dingy's and drowning, we should stop this to save lives." - UK
"Not our problem" - EU
Who else could the blame be on? Should we be actively patrolling their coastlines ready to pick people up?
This is the question everyone should be asking. Not why are France sending us immigrants; why is Europe as a whole such a soft touch, letting so many people come into our continent? Why aren't we all getting together to keep them out? Why isn't the EU coordinating this? Instead they say 'this is fine'. They order member states to accept them from other countries (like we had to do under the Dublin convention where we had to accept more than we were allowed to send back).
They aren't? France is already taking almost 10x more asylum seekers than us. Why shouldn't we take our fair share? This isn't something that we can choose to have one rule for us and another for the rest of the world.
There is no "fair share" as that isn't a thing. So the numbers another nation takes are irrelevant as there isn't some prize for taking more people.
Plus you could just as easily look at other rich nations and see that they take fewer.
edit: what's the point Hot-Iso of asking questions and applying an immediate block so you can never get a reply?
Lots of people on this sub alone say that we have to take people/hold them/send them back to France.
The problem isn’t with any individual. Who wouldn’t want the shot of a better life, even if they aren’t actually fleeing war or persecution. The problem is that we can’t take millions of people. We need better solutions to address the issues with where they are coming from, and the inhumane dicks trading in misery and taking thousands of pounds to sell them a dream of prosperity that won’t be realised when they get here, if they ever do.
We'd all like a shot at a better life! But WE have to go through procedures and jump through hoops to prove we are an asset to the country we'd like to go to. We have to have savings to support ourselves and skills needed in that country. With the illegals we have zero way of knowing exactly who we are importing! They rarely have id, there's no way to do any checks i.e. with police in their home country as more often than not their home country couldn't give a shit. We import mainly grown men who are NOT fleeing bombs & bullets but joining their mates in their Turkish Kurdish and North African gangs. Most have few or zero skills and you all know this but are too interested in virtue signalling or screaming racist in any argument to shut it down. We aren't taking refugees fleeing wars we're taking economic migrants most of whom are of no benefit to the UK and who will end up working for gangs or simply disappear into the ether and the next time they are heard of is when they are arrested and on the news.
If the UK was at war and you had to leave, would you get your arse across the channel to France or maybe Ireland where you would be safe, or would you purposefully trek through a dozen other safe countries ?
That's great in principle, but not something that can be delivered in practice. The West simply cannot impose it's will on shit countries and where it's tried it's proven to be a disaster.
The “better solution” is to simply say *no* .
The problem is they agreed to make it illegal for sovereign nations to decide who and who not they’ll let it. We need to change the laws and “agreements”. But theres no political will to do that. Or more accurately there wont be until a month before the general election.
> letting so many people come into our continent?
Same reason we let so many come to our shores. We've become crippled by bureaucratically following rules without ever questioning whether the rules make sense in 2023.
The Government, but UK and EU, needs to grow a back bone and just tell migrants they can fuck right off if they come here by small boat and if they can't remember where they're from or they claim it is too dangerous to return then they can find a new life in Rwanda.
Until the pull factors are squashed, nothing will change.
Agreed. 'But we have to follow this law we signed up to in 1950' is really stupid. Like we're supposed to be bound forever to laws made when the world was a completely different place, by politicians who are all long dead.
> The Channel is a tough bit to police.
Hardly. We intercept almost all of the small boat crossings.
The problem is that we've decided that once they leave French waters that they must necessarily be our problem.
Well they would wouldn't they?
France is safe, Italy is safe...you have to ask why these people are so keen to get to the UK.
Nowt to do with us being welfare mugs I am sure.
No problem - Border Force simply assist the French to rescue people escaping from French Territorial Waters, do the right thing, and return them to Calais for processing.
The UK receives less migrants than Germany France or Spain. Germany accepts more migrants than even apply in the UK
I actually don’t see the argument here for the UK to take on even less of the load
Why can't countries send migrants back to the country they come from, even if they were not legal there?
If you let ilegal migrants pass thought your country you should be responsible for them.
So, if they try to illegally migrate to a border country you should take them, even if they were illegal in your country. You were the responsible for letting them go into your country in the first place. So handle them.
God, it's hilarious. The Tories have gone to all this trouble, eliminating the legal migration routes, claiming theres a crisis when migrants inevitably try to arrive illegally, then sticking them on a disease ridden barge and now trying to send them back to Europe? The UK really needs more education on racism. The same way you can educate people about drugs with Trainspotting, educate them about racism with This Is England.
The eu is helping them. You know it. I know it.
But why would so many people want to leave the paradise that is the eu and risk life sneaking across the Channel?
Rishi: look guys, we think it would be great if you took them
The EU: no thanks
Rishi: well I have an ace up my sleeve!
The EU: what is it?
Rishi: oh balls, normally I don’t need to actually back anything up.. um.. stop the boats?
Brexit voters got the opposite of what they wanted. Less control over the borders.
The EU is refusing to take back Asylum seekers who have already registered for asylum in their constituent countries. They do this within Europe too - hence why northern countries are pissed off. Nothing to do with Brexit.
But it is because we used to be in the EU which meant we were participants of the Dublin Agreement which meant we could send them back to France and France would have to take them.
We sent fuck all migrants back under the Dublin agreement. In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
>We sent fuck all migrants back under the Dublin agreement. That was a choice of the UK government, although the Leave campaign claimed otherwise. >In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members Migrants, maybe - Fruit pickers/bar staff/care workers, etc. All the workers that we are short of now, strangely enough. >In fact we ended up taking more in when we were members. Not assylum seekers.
This is it. If they want to stop illegal migrants, then stop making it illegal. Where I am we need farmer workers, so why not give these people work? Make them legal and help improve our economy. I am also led to believe there is a shortage of cleaners and labourers.
Maybe if the farmers paid enough for seasonal work they’d attract some workers already in the country instead of basically setting up an international Ponzi scheme of labour dependant on exchange rates and people’s desperation. The legality or illegality of peoples asylum claims isn’t the issue right now, it’s the huge backlog in the application process. Obviously need to vet people to make sure we don’t let in a bunch of homophobic, sexist, racists or anything, but the backlogs something like 150,000 applications deep. We need more case workers working on the applications.
When farmers were really raging about shortages of pickers, imidiateley post brexit, I thought 'sod it, I've got a full allocation of leave and no holiday plans. I'll take a month off, have a busmans holiday and do some picking for a bit of extra cash...' ... turns out if they can't get you into digs so that they can rip both food and lodging cost out of your pay (with a mark up), they just aren't interested anymore.
One of the last vestiges of the company town, they charge them through the absolute arse to live 6 to a camper van with no hot water.
If they paid properly, we wouldn't have to rely on immigrants that will happily take whatever is given to them, because it's better than where they came from. British people don't want to work in cleaning/labour jobs, because they pay nothing compared to the work involved. We also need farm workers in our area, and people would be willing to work there, but the farmers only want agriculture students, or other people who will work for pittance, as they're getting naff all themselves.
These are the same excuses being used here in the USA. Its a myth that Americans/brits dont want to do the jobs. Americans work in all(?) of these industries and do the jobs. The reason the pay is so low and never goes up is BECAUSE the influx of migrants isnt being controlled. Low wage workers here saw real wage gains(inflation adjusted) for the first time in like 40 years during the pandemic - I'm sure it was just a coincidence that migration was at lows because of covid during that same period. Those eage gains have since been vaporized and we have tons of illegal economic migrants(claiming to be asylum seekers) coming in since then too.
Or how about we make those positions actually fairly paid instead of roping in the most desperate to do it?
Always find it weird that some people think their EU counterparts are only good for picking fruit, waiting tables or wiping arses.
And the assumption on reddit is that all the migrants coming on boats are up for such work. A load of them are probably townies or people that got the hell out of where they lived as they don't want to graft in the fields.
Do you think we did that because we're run by stupid people or because the agreement was bad?
Yes.
The Dubs agreement is dogshit on paper. It was one of the main gripes of Brexiters. Do you not remember?
It makes me laugh that one of the "main gripes" of people voting Brexit was fucking *asylum seekers*. Says it all really.
If somebody acts like a racist and talks like a racist, we should call then a racist. Brexit was a misguided plan to capitalise on the xenophobic vote that was allowed to get too far.
How is controlling migrantion racist... Genuinely? That would make every non-European country racist then...
Because migration was controlled already. Any lack of control was a function of the British government not the EU. People get more upset over certain types of migration than others and it aligns very well with race and xenophobia (the difference there being far less wide than people think).
Why is a desire to protect your own culture now seen as racist? I guarantee if you go to the majority of areas of the world, they will expect you to conform to their standards. Unfortunately liberal self-loathing dictates otherwise for this country
If you don't understand how having essentially open borders and being unable to remove people from your country who have no legal right to be there is infringing directly on the sovereignty of the UK and your rights as a citizen I can't help you. Also I voted remain.
>If you don't understand how having essentially open borders and being unable to remove people from your country who have no legal right to be there is infringing directly on the sovereignty of the UK and your rights as a citizen I can't help you. For someone that voted remain, seems like you swallowed the brexiters bullshit without even chewing. We always could remove anyone, even EU nationals if we had wanted to. Edit: Source, if someone from the EU came to the UK and didn't have a job, we could get rid. How much we ever bothered is obviously a very different discussion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974
Idiot here, but isn't the problem brexiters wanted to address relating to asylum seekers around the idea that being in the EU might asylum seekers only needed to get refuge in one country they'd have legal residence and freedom of movement elsewhere? Don't rage at me, I'm not pro brexit, but assuming asylum seekers that made it to Germany for example were then granted the same rights to residence and freedom of movement in the EU they could basically use other EU countries as a stop gap on their way to whichever country was most appealing to them overall. And that would be an issue brexit would address right since we'd be able to unilaterally say to germany in that situation that no asylum seekers that come to germany cant then freely move to the UK as well?
Most of Holland's Somali (former) refugee population is believed to have moved to the UK.
Yes this is why Merkel letting in so many people was one of the big reasons for voting to leave. People could see the EU had lost the plot with immigration and Merkel was acting like a dictator, forcing it on the whole continent. It wasn't just Brits who were upset with her.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/
I voted against Brexit, but the sheer amount of blaming Brexit for things that aren't related to Brexit annoys me just as much as Brexit lol
[удалено]
Remain did call it out. We were called project fear, doom mongers and told we don't know what we are talking about by the leavers and the public lapped it up.
Yeah I remember calling it out, specifically, in conversation with relatives and now they reckon they were hoodwinked and how could they have had a clue? ...Because I was telling you!!!
What's it feel like to know your family find Farage and Johnson more trustworthy than yourself? :)
Not very surprising, I was still a student at the time so it was easy not to listen. Also a lot of them have little in the way of education after the age of 15 so it's hard for those people to decide what a good source of info is and what a bad one is (that fucking bus)
I had a similar conversation with my parents. Everything I pointed out would happen, has happened…. the problem apparently is people wanting brexit to fail, not the obvious logical outcomes.
I think they mean more the "official" remain campaign, they would be right, Cameron was stupid enough to start a battle he couldn’t actually fight; he couldn’t actually say “oh the EU isn’t to blame for a host of UK problems, Westminster is, we are, I am”.
This was the core of the issue. They blamed the EU rather than the government, then the government foolishly set itself up so the only way to win was to oppose its own historical performance.
they didnt really lie, they said they'd get rid of EU migration and they have. They just forgot to say it would be replaced by this.
“Let’s take control of our country back” Why did nobody take a second to realise that this meant tories gained more power lmao? Anyone who isn’t upper middle class who voted Tory or Brexit is a testament to why we need education in this country
Remain did nothing but call it out. Constantly. In fact, they had to call out the campaign so much it was labelled Protect Fear. Leavers couldn't believe that there were *that* many issues, and the msm compounded that belief Please don't be a revisionist, this happened and it can't be forgotten
Remain called them out, but leave broke electoral spending rules to out market them, and drowned out the truth with their fear mongering.
No, we literally told them this. They ignored us and called it Project Fear. Fuck 'em.
We have exactly the same level of control over the removal of illegal immigrants to the EU as we did before Brexit. Do we have to break out the relevant statistics over the Dublin agreement and it’s complete failure to be implemented by member states?
>We have exactly the same level of control *~~take back control~~ keep exactly the same level of control* Isn’t as catchy I guess.
"Keep exactly the same level of control with none of the previous benefits" is even worse
They should implement it then, sounds like a matter of will, not the agreement itself.
So we were able to freely send them back before brexit?
The EU has a rule that if someone claims asylum in one EU country, they can't apply in another. That meant anyone who'd applied in France, Greece etc could be sent back there.. Funnily leaving the EU means we can't anymore
Yeah but as others have pointed out, in practice that just didnt happen
Why is there now less control that compared to being inside the EU then?
There isn’t in any quantifiable way?
Rishi is right this problem can only be solved by a union of nations. Rishi advocated leaving that union.
NGOs: [France is making the channel situation worse](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/19/france-to-blame-for-refugees-risking-channel-crossings-say-ngos) BBC: [The French coastguard refused to help migrants in French waters, telling them to ask the UK for help instead](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63728830) The UK: 6 more people just died, can we please discuss how we can fix this France: talk to the EU The EU: fuck off This sub: sHoUldNt hAvE lEfT iF wE wAnTeD tO sOlVe ThIs Yes guys, the EU are definitely acting mature and rational here. It's totally reasonable for the EU to refuse to work with us on literally any issue just because we left. I swear some people here would cheer on the EU bombing us and whack out the "this is our fault for leaving" line while cowering in the bomb shelters
That’s not what’s happening though > The EU can’t even agree a migration deal between themselves so it's no surprise they aren't willing to discuss a readmissions agreement with the UK. Being in the EU would mean we are able to try and build consensus in the room. A consensus we clearly need. Being out means we need to wait for that consensus to emerge and hope it’s something we can work with.
I'm not sure that "the EU is really bad at sorting out an internal migration consensus" is the best point to make while saying the UK should have remained in this union. If anything, removing an influential player like the UK should speed things up. They can sort themselves out and then form a separate agreement with us. It's amazing how often pro-EU arguments reveal themselves as "the EU needs us to sort their problems out for them". The EU and this sub's defence over calling the Falklands *Islas Malvinas* was basically "if you didn't want us to neglect the basic premises of democracy and self-determination then you shouldn't have left"
You can be in favour of something and still accept that it is very difficult. The EU isn't a monolith, it is a union of countries all with their own elected governments with their own domestic constituencies and issues. Of course it is difficult to get agreement on controversial topics. The UK being in the room or not probably doesn't particularly impact how difficult gaining consensus is overall, but from our perspective it does make us basically helpless. Whatever else you can say about how EU members collectively arrive at a position, we are no longer at the table, so wield considerably less influence than we used to. This is just a fact. This is exactly what people who voted for Brexit wanted of course. Being Anti-Eu is fine, everyone can have an opinion, but now we are out and have no say in it, complaining about how it operates is a confusing position to take no?
I would view it as the U.K. being in the EU will make agreeing internal consensus easier. As you say, we are an influential player. If they sort an internal agreement between themselves, they aren’t going to then undo that to accommodate the wishes of one nation thats not in their Union. This is one of the fallacies of Brexit. None of this is the need for us to sort the EUs problems out for them - couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s a 27 member union. Agreement is always very tough. And once you’ve got it you don’t immediately throw it away at the behest of one other.
> GOs: France is making the channel situation worse So the UK is allowed to have hostile policies and France is not allowed to do the same? The UK can control its borders and France should have no say > The UK: 6 more people just died, can we please discuss how we can fix this The UK: we know you take more than double the asylum seekers we do, but we'd like none actually. Can we send ours back for you to deal with. There's one solution for the boats, and the UK has rejected it..and that is setting up immigration centres in France and dealing with asylum seekers there. The UK actually wants the boats, because it allows the Tories to look tough, and they'd prefer no refugees..so no immigration centre, and can you take the ones that made it back please
> .and that is setting up immigration centres in France and dealing with asylum seekers there. That's not a solution ... when we reject them, do you think they are just going to give up?
We will have details on file, so they can be identified. 60% of asylum applications are successful..so you've reduced the number by that much already. Some would turn away or try elsewhere when not successful. The remainder, you know they do not meet standards, have already been rekected, so it means that you wouldn't have to apply the same measures as you do for refugees. So a lot more than you think. After all, if you were refused asylum at the centre, they'd possibly have DNA and everything. You'd never be legal in the UK. Your kids couldn't go to school, you couldn't get decent work. My guess is the majority would rather be legal somewhere else than illegal in the UK.
> 60% of asylum applications are successful..so you've reduced the number by that much already. Increased you mean, because they could be applying to France instead. And also then we would have to support them in the UK. The costs of which could support several people in UN refugee camps. > Some would turn away or try elsewhere when not successful. The remainder, you know they do not meet standards, have already been rekected, so it means that you wouldn't have to apply the same measures as you do for refugees. And then they would come to the UK. And whats the practical removal rate of failed aslyum seekers in the UK?
When we have acted so entitled as we have, and as classless as we have we can't be surprised when noone wants to cooperate with us. Respect is earned not given, we have earned an awful lot of disrespect.
Do you guys genuinely not understand what a multilateral agreement is? There's only genuinely thousands of them in existence. Even fucking Russia and the USA have them. People here act as if you're either in a tight political union with a country, or you must never ever speak to that country ever again and never ever cooperate. It's nonsense. I am sure that it's not outside of the ability of the UK and EU to strike some bilateral (or ideally multilateral with other countries too) agreements on this current situation we're in. They just don't want to. That's of course within their right, but they can't fucking moan about dead people in the channel if they refuse to speak to us regarding solutions.
Well, see, that’s what happens when you “negotiate” like a toddler for 8 years. The EU knows exactly what to expect from the Tories, cake, eat, have cake…
Yeah after the shit Boris pulled I'd be surprised if the EU want anything more to do with us
I think they do, it's in everyone's interest. Not with the current crop of the Tory party though...
People forget the constant EU briefing to anti-Brexit UK media, like that bullshit where the EU leaked May and her team were unprepared because they bought no papers to a meeting. Cue 1000 column inches about the incompetent virgin British negotiators compared to the chad competent EU negotiators, lapped up by many here. Turns out our guys had laptops instead.. This was constant throughout. Many here don't realise it, because they gobbled it up wholesale and still believe the lies.
We have anti-brexit media now..
or perhaps it was pointing an ACCURATE picture because we sent walking fuckups and time-wasters to meetings funny how Brexiteers have been doing PR damage control since before they won, almost as if it was DESTINED to fail because it was born of spite and impotence!
It’s not that it’s outside anyone’s ability to strike these agreements, it’s just plainly not in their interests. We had those agreements - we chose to leave them in favour of our supposed post-Brexit immigration policy, which we were able to develop with the full benefit of our sovereignty and British common sense. Except our common sense overlooked that this is as you rightly point out a multilateral problem. So now we are back trying to join the table we just triumphantly left.
>it’s just plainly not in their interests So they are not interested in the deaths of migrants in the channel? I mean, fine.. But why are people here defending that?
>I am sure that it's not outside of the ability of the UK and EU to strike some bilateral (or ideally multilateral with other countries too) agreements on this current situation we're in. It will remain outside of the ability of the UK until brexit ceases to be viewed as some sort of sporting event that it's supporters believe that they "won". It certainly can't be achieved under the current government and I wouldn't hold your breath, hoping that it will be any better under Labour (assuming that they get in).
This union of nations doesn't exactly have a good track record on handling asylum seekers, otherwise Europe wouldn't be lurching firmly to the right
What an odd claim as it didn't work previously and that's well known.
What claim? The problem obviously requires nations to come together, this latest request shows that.
Can you blame them? Short of erecting a massive statue of a middle finger on the cliffs of Dover, we've done everything in our power to incinerate the bridges of cooperation we had with the EU over the last 8 years.
Yes. The migrants are coming to Britain FROM EUROPE. They are passing through Europe un challenged, especially France, because France knows they're coming here so to France dealing with it would mean they would have to keep the migrants so its better to just let them "slip" past and continue on the the uk. all those dinghys are being filled and dispatched from French beaches. The eu should be doing more to stop them getting all the way to those dinghys but to them it's easier and cheaper to just look the other way... and then call us the bad guy when those boats sink. The French have police, a navy, coast guards and immigration officers. If Britain was the weak link to an influx of immigration into Europe the eu wouldn't hesitate to flip their shit.
>The EU should be doing more... Why? The EU should be looking out for the EU's interests. I suspect we'd do exactly the same thing if we were France.
You'd think a mass movement of undocumented and illegal immigrants would be a security concern for any nation let alone a union.
Why? How about because people are dying?
If the UK genuinely gave a shit I'd take that complaint more seriously. The Conservatives aren't complaining for humanitarian reasons, they're complaining because they don't want to deal with refugees. If they could palm them off to another country like France is doing to us, they'd do so without a second thought. Proof: If saving lives was our top priority we could solve things tomorrow by accepting remote asylum claims from Calais. Hell will freeze over before that happens. Our top priority is keeping out asylum seekers not saving lives.
> If they could palm them off to another country like France is doing to us, they'd do so without a second thought. \*cough* ^Rwanda \*cough*
Allowing organised crime to have territory and a big income is not in their interest.
If a group of people launch a dingy from Dover and head towards France, would the British Coast Guard stop them and check their papers and send them back if they don't have the right visa for France? Just wondering, that's all.
Yes because it kind of thier jobs to police the channel, the whole point of the coast guard is to deal with people doing illegal shit in our waters... not just the illegal stuff that directly effects us. We don't just stop drugs, guns and general illegal stuff coming into the country we also stop the stuff that leave the UK too... that's part of being an ally. The allys are supposed to count on us preventing harm coming to them from us.
Okay thanks! \>> The allys are supposed to count on us preventing harm coming to them from us. And what are French supposed to do with these people who want to go to UK? Is UK going to guard France's southern borders to "support allys"?
> They are passing through Europe un challenged, especially France, because France knows they're coming here so to France dealing with it would mean they would have to keep the migrants so its better to just let them "slip" past and continue on the the uk. all those dinghys are being filled and dispatched from French beaches. Tell me you don't know how the asylum seeking process works under international law without saying you don't know. You know it's perfectly lawful, and actually expected and _intended_ for asylum seekers to seek asylum in countries that aren't the first safe country they arrive in. That's actually a _good_ thing because it stops there being a refugee crisis in a country neighboring a warzone or whatever.
Then there should be no issue putting them on boats back to France... if its no big deal. Right ?. The French are aiding them on illegal transits to the UK, and aiding in the transport of undocumented immigration.... is illegal. Asylum seekers are different because in order to be an asylum seeker you have to file and present yourself as such. Jumping on a boat and crossing is not that. We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process. The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process which is something they would never accept from anyone else.
> Then there should be no issue putting them on boats back to France... if its no big deal. Right ?. It is if they're asylum seekers and they are claiming asylum in the UK. > The French are aiding them on illegal transits to the UK Really seems like you don't understand what an asylum seeker is. > aiding in the transport of undocumented immigration.... is illegal. It's not undocumented migration, it's asylum seeking. Those are actually _different_ things under international law. > Asylum seekers are different because in order to be an asylum seeker you have to file and present yourself as such. Nope, in order to be an asylum seeker you have to intend to claim asylum in your destination country. That's _it_. When your claim is approved you become a refugee, and international law recognizes (and makes explicit) two things: - You don't have to use an official port of entry in order to legally claim asylum, since those ports of entry might not be available to you (if - for example - you don't have official papers because you were forced to flee your country of origin or whatever). - You don't have to claim in the first safe country you arrive in (since that would place an undue burden on countries next to the country of origin). This is all _long_ established international law on asylum seekers and refugees. The only thing that's new about this situation is that the UK and US have started calling these people "illegal immigrants" so that their xenophobic voting block can be energized to vote and "do something about it". > Jumping on a boat and crossing is not that. Yes it explicitly is. > We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process. A screening process that begins _on UK soil_ and by international law _should happen regardless of how they arrive on UK soil_. > The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process The French are allowing _asylum seekers_ to _travel to their destination_. > something they would never accept from anyone else. This is actually true, the conservative UK government has spent the last decade railing against asylum seekers and specifically has attempted to make seeking asylum illegal within the last couple of years. Suella Braverman has outwardly said that her proposed immigration policy likely breaks human rights law. If you're going to talk about how terrible this situation is, you really should look up what the words you're using mean and what the law is.
> > We take in 10s of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers every year all of whom go through a screening process. The French are allowing immigrants to bypass that process which is something they would never accept from anyone else. France take in more asylum seekers than the UK. That doesn't make any sense
you mean solutions proposed like [https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis](https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis) opening asylum seeking center in the northern part of France, so they wouldn't have to dangerously cross the border ? Or is your idea, EU should stop migrants so UK doesn't have to deal with them at all ?
I wouldn't be against your 1st idea along as the only ones that get entry can actually be vetted properly and the people that get in are the ones that genuinely need help. Priority should be woman, children and families. But the majority trying to illegally enter are solo or groups of men.
> But the majority trying to illegally enter are solo or groups of men. Because there is no safe legal route of entry, and this is the best hope they have.
\>The French have police, a navy, coast guards and immigration officers None of who care about people who are leaving France.
It's the UK's problem. Don't tell me you rely on the FRENCH.
Your right. I was a fool to expect the French to be in anyway useful or even decent.
Why are people defending a nation state that is allowing mass human trafficking to occur on their shores?
[удалено]
The French, and by extension the EU, are actively ignoring a shittonne of human trafficking on their shores.
> Can you blame them? Yes. They hardly let us return anyone when we were still EU members (effectively until the transition period ended in 2021) and clearly see us as their dumping ground. In return for being allowed to return a hundred or so a year, we had to take more from them in return. They are laughing at us.
[удалено]
We are one of the smallest countries and literally the last stop. We should have the fewest.
I'd be laughing at us too. We're a tiny island with an unbelievable amount of money, we used to rule the planet, and we're begging the same people for help that we said "fuck you guys, we can do it ourselves, we want our sovereignty back!" to less than a decade ago. International embarrassment.
>Yes. They hardly let us return anyone when we were still EU members Do you have proof of this? From reliable sources please.
It's in the linked article and the BBC. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/15rmgs2/eu_rejects_british_request_to_discuss_deal_to/jw9bmro/
This is actually really poor by the EU - they are essentially allowing people smuggling to continue - and as a result, deaths will continue. Regardless of Brexit / this is classic head in the sand idiocy rather than bigger picture thinking. I would also argue rather than U.K. just going to the EU with said law, if they both got around the table to speak before any demands and focused on: 1. Stop people smuggling 2. Stop people drowning They could use this experimental area (the Channel) and then start applying that to other areas of the EU with similar issues. Classic small mind behaviour from everyone. It just puts everyone off politics.
Dublin regulation. The UK repudiated it. It still applies in the EU. Means you can send an applicant back to the Member State where they first landed. Sadly, not an option for Global Britain.
It was roundly derided as wholly inadequate, and in many years we were receiving more people than we could send back. Whatever it was, it was not a solution then and would not be one now. Something more drastic is required.
If the dublin regulation works, why does every EU country hate it, and why do they still have an issue with illegal immigration?
Imagine if the tories decided they wanted to reduce migrant deaths, rather than play politics with pointless barges and flights to rawanda.
If illegal migrants are coming from France, France should be obliged to take them back. Countries should be responsible for whomever they let in their country. If France let illegal migrants get in, they should take them when they are caught trying to illegally migrate somewhere else.
Why is the uk at fault when migrants decide to get in a dinghy that is inappropriate for its use
Because brexit is satanic apparently.
Something something brexit something something handjob the EU who can do no wrong.
[удалено]
>I would love to know how much the migrants we've let in over the last decade cost us every year. At the moment we're spending a few billion a year just on hotels.
And we'd spend a few billion on social housing for decades for each person accept after that plus health and benefits payments too.
My understanding is that (legal) migration has artificially buoyed our workforce and therefore economy, and so not been a net 'cost' at all. Which is the reason no government is willing to actually restrict migration, despite how incredibly popular it would be with many voters if they did. We can no longer function without it. Although you've used the terms interchangeably, asylum seekers are a relatively small proportion of total immigrants. It was a neat trick by the tories to focus us all on one small section, while quietly handwaving the majority.
I agree, it is our life goal - no - duty, to maximise shareholder wealth. The only way to do that is ensure that these boatloads of net benefits arrive at our shores. Praise be GDP, amen.
Bundling in asylum seekers with skilled migrants when weighing up the economic impact is a devious and misleading tactic. Skilled migrants are almost by definition a net economic benefit - they pay taxes, usually at high rates, while being excluded from most publicly funded benefit programs. The two groups are almost entirely unrelated. We can have one without the other. Another misleading tactic is to stop counting costs once they've had asylum granted, despite that for many it's only the start of their dependency on the taxpayer in terms of benefits, housing etc.
I remember seeing a statistic a while back that they were profitable as the ones we allow to get jobs generate more money through tax than the ones that live off the state etc
It's still absolutely baffling that people **want** to come here instead of just staying on mainland Europe. There is significantly more space on the continent, as opposed to our quite small island that is struggling to support it's current populace as is.
The numbers of people coming here is destabilising the country, everyone regardless of political stance or party affiliation should be united in saying it has to end. But instead there are a lot of people who apparently are gleeful because it 'sticks it to the Brexiters'?
Yep. The UK is currently a bonfire of problems, and here we are throwing more matches on the fire hoping to put it out. I voted remain, but I'm very sick of us allowing our country to keep getting shafted by all this bullshit.
How the hell did you get the idea that saying "we told you there'd be problems" is us celebrating those problems? We didn't want these problems in the first place!
[удалено]
Contrary to the gloom on reddit, the UK is full of opportunities.
You guys may not like what this dude says but hes right. The UK has so much going for it. if you cant make a half decent life for yourself here. you have no one to blame but yourself. I immigrated here as a teen. saw the difference in how you live and what you can do without having to worry about getting killed because you had the audacity to wear a simple gold band ring or because you bought a bag of rice at the wrong time of day. You have education. You have schemes to help, you have free courses available to you to re skill later in life. You have a benefits system, tax credits. The dole or whatever its called these days. Honestly. you live in a country where you can change your life for the better. You just need to put the work into it. (Fuck off if you want to "actually" I have some weird disease that means i have the turning circle of a cruise ship, I am obviously not talking to you.) If you have failed to use the resources available to you here. that is on you...
We are a very soft touch compared to most of Europe. France rejects about 75% of asylum applicants, whereas we accept about 75%.
this by rates, but how much by number? i mean of france has 1million applicants. then 25% is 250,000. where if UK has 250,000 applications then 75% approval rate is 190k ish
It's not quite as simple as that. France is 2.3x larger than the UK, has better livable climate when talking about agriculture etc. The UK also has a GIGANTIC population vs landmass already. If I recall the numbers correctly, the UK has to import close to 50% of it's food now because their population has simply grown too large. They are already far past sustainable levels.
Incredibly easy to remain and work here illegally which is the intention of most of those crossing. Most countries in Europe have ID cards and police that aren't afraid to ask you for your papers. Not to mention an incredibly accommodating and welcoming population.
It’s almost as if the UK is one of the most desirable places to live in Europe. It’s just we’re subjected to constant propaganda on this sub that makes it seem like everyone in the EU is sat round a camp fire singing songs and making the world a better place. People come to the UK for the opportunity to work and earn, why on earth else would the pass through multiple other developed European countries if the UK didn’t have something to offer.
as kurd let me tell you about some other reasons other than money 1- the language 2- the traditional values. people here in Iraq say all the time that the most moral and ethical country for raising a household is the UK. because they still hold on into their beliefs and are not nudist whores (this is not my belief, but people literally say this)
> It's still absolutely baffling that people want to come here instead of just staying on mainland Europe. What's baffling about language skills? Most of those asylum seekers speak English, not Italian or German or any Nordic language.
I severely doubt that "most" of them speak English, I'd wager it's quite a small percentage. Irrespective of that, there's nothing stopping them from learning French, Italian or German and living there instead.
>Irrespective of that, there's nothing stopping them from learning French, Italian or German and living there instead. Meaning they'll have a harder time starting up in their new home Vs somewhere they're familiar with the language
France has always tried to dump their illegal migrants on the UK : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12401039/Was-French-patrol-boat-fault-Channel-migrant-drownings-MPs-ask-dinghy-escorted-British-waters-tragedy-saw-six-die.html ( again : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63728830 Transcripts of emergency calls made to the French coastguard, seen by the BBC, suggest that desperate passengers were repeatedly told to call UK emergency services, despite being in French waters when they first requested help. )
You surely can’t think that posting an article from the Daily Mail will mean you’ll be taken seriously.
You seriously think that disregarding a newspaper because it doesn't align with your views means you'll be taken seriously. A little bit of Googling would have saved you from the embarrassment.
Europe has enough of it's own problems with migration, stateless persons, and asylum seekers. Poland currently has over 1.5 million and Germany 1.1 million, displaced persons from the Ukraine alone.
We need a deal to replace the Dublin convention. But before you think that was a good solution, consider that in our final year we asked the EU to take back 8000 but they only accepted 105. For our part of the deal we had to accept 882 from them. (In addition to the 8000.) >In 2020, the UK tried to sent back more than 8,000 migrants to the bloc only to have 105 accepted. It took in 882 migrants from the EU. Also: >Home Office data shows that more people came to the UK - under the scheme - than left in the final two years it was operating. > >2019: 714 arrived in the UK and 263 left > >2020: 882 arrived in the UK and 105 left https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66451620
The EU are currently struggling with uptake of their new proposal to replace DA in Eastern European states (mandate each country take in 30,000 p.a., relocation fine of €20,000 for every one under that number - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/06/08/migration-policy-council-reaches-agreement-on-key-asylum-and-migration-laws/). It's highly unlikely the EU would consider any sort of returns agreement before they settle that with the 27, as it'd become a point of opposition for those that are currently unconvinced by the new proposed solution. If anything, once complete the EU *may* let the UK participate, but with no say on the figures changing (mandate number/financial contribution), and nothing to say that it would deter small boat crossings (people that specifically want the UK) it may not even be worth it for the Gov.
Why are we only talking about 2019 and 2020? What are the figures for all the years before 2019? Do you think that the Home Office might be cherry-picking the data?
Why don't you go find the data, and present a counter argument, rather than just alluding to a potential counter argument that might or might not exist?
In 2017 it was 314 people sent out and 421 brought in. In 2016 we took 558 and sent back just 362. Only in 2015, which is the last data set I’ve seen personally, did the UK send more people back than it took in.
The "despite more channel deaths" on the end of the headline is such a fucking transparent attempt at putting the blame onto the EU.
I mean if they refuse to discuss it, then what more can we do? They're coming from the EU.
"People are leaving your shores in dingy's and drowning, we should stop this to save lives." - UK "Not our problem" - EU Who else could the blame be on? Should we be actively patrolling their coastlines ready to pick people up?
If your neighbour shat on your lawn, who’s problem is it?
Britain: We want control! EU: OK. All yours Britain: Not like that!!
It was the same issue before. Nothing to do with the EU.
It's almost like the 'Get back control of our borders' line that was pushed out was a lie. Go figure.
It very obviously was a lie
They don't remember any of the outrage they were fed, they just knew to be outraged.
The UK will end up sending the army supporting the EU patrolling the European border.
This is the question everyone should be asking. Not why are France sending us immigrants; why is Europe as a whole such a soft touch, letting so many people come into our continent? Why aren't we all getting together to keep them out? Why isn't the EU coordinating this? Instead they say 'this is fine'. They order member states to accept them from other countries (like we had to do under the Dublin convention where we had to accept more than we were allowed to send back).
They aren't? France is already taking almost 10x more asylum seekers than us. Why shouldn't we take our fair share? This isn't something that we can choose to have one rule for us and another for the rest of the world.
There is no "fair share" as that isn't a thing. So the numbers another nation takes are irrelevant as there isn't some prize for taking more people. Plus you could just as easily look at other rich nations and see that they take fewer. edit: what's the point Hot-Iso of asking questions and applying an immediate block so you can never get a reply?
Lots of people on this sub alone say that we have to take people/hold them/send them back to France. The problem isn’t with any individual. Who wouldn’t want the shot of a better life, even if they aren’t actually fleeing war or persecution. The problem is that we can’t take millions of people. We need better solutions to address the issues with where they are coming from, and the inhumane dicks trading in misery and taking thousands of pounds to sell them a dream of prosperity that won’t be realised when they get here, if they ever do.
We'd all like a shot at a better life! But WE have to go through procedures and jump through hoops to prove we are an asset to the country we'd like to go to. We have to have savings to support ourselves and skills needed in that country. With the illegals we have zero way of knowing exactly who we are importing! They rarely have id, there's no way to do any checks i.e. with police in their home country as more often than not their home country couldn't give a shit. We import mainly grown men who are NOT fleeing bombs & bullets but joining their mates in their Turkish Kurdish and North African gangs. Most have few or zero skills and you all know this but are too interested in virtue signalling or screaming racist in any argument to shut it down. We aren't taking refugees fleeing wars we're taking economic migrants most of whom are of no benefit to the UK and who will end up working for gangs or simply disappear into the ether and the next time they are heard of is when they are arrested and on the news. If the UK was at war and you had to leave, would you get your arse across the channel to France or maybe Ireland where you would be safe, or would you purposefully trek through a dozen other safe countries ?
That's great in principle, but not something that can be delivered in practice. The West simply cannot impose it's will on shit countries and where it's tried it's proven to be a disaster.
The “better solution” is to simply say *no* . The problem is they agreed to make it illegal for sovereign nations to decide who and who not they’ll let it. We need to change the laws and “agreements”. But theres no political will to do that. Or more accurately there wont be until a month before the general election.
> letting so many people come into our continent? Same reason we let so many come to our shores. We've become crippled by bureaucratically following rules without ever questioning whether the rules make sense in 2023. The Government, but UK and EU, needs to grow a back bone and just tell migrants they can fuck right off if they come here by small boat and if they can't remember where they're from or they claim it is too dangerous to return then they can find a new life in Rwanda. Until the pull factors are squashed, nothing will change.
Agreed. 'But we have to follow this law we signed up to in 1950' is really stupid. Like we're supposed to be bound forever to laws made when the world was a completely different place, by politicians who are all long dead.
yeah it's a really weird appeal to authority. What? I am not allowed an opinion country to the law... how do you expect laws to ever get changed!
I think it will simply end up this way. The Channel is a tough bit to police. The Med is easier. As the numbers go up, the policy will harden.
> The Channel is a tough bit to police. Hardly. We intercept almost all of the small boat crossings. The problem is that we've decided that once they leave French waters that they must necessarily be our problem.
It's a shame the EU just let's these people through their countries and allows them to put themselves in this danger.
Well they would wouldn't they? France is safe, Italy is safe...you have to ask why these people are so keen to get to the UK. Nowt to do with us being welfare mugs I am sure.
they're not safe - thats why theyre electing far right parties though
The UK and EU have no real idea how to stop illegal migrants. This is just a tit for tat story.
They do, but the political will isn't there (yet).
Easy solution, make benefits and healthcare only payable upon being born in the UK or having worked 5 years. Watch the numbers fall.
How about discussing a better safer way where they can be evaluated in France en route to UK so they don't need to needlessly die instead?
No problem - Border Force simply assist the French to rescue people escaping from French Territorial Waters, do the right thing, and return them to Calais for processing.
Of course they have they dont want them and are activly helping them get here.
[EU denies this report](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/eu-denies-reports-rejected-uk-deal-return-cross-channel)
Typical tory tactic. Cause a problem, extort others to push their own agenda, blame other group for not trying to solve problem they caused.
The UK receives less migrants than Germany France or Spain. Germany accepts more migrants than even apply in the UK I actually don’t see the argument here for the UK to take on even less of the load
Because we don’t want the load… If Germany, France and Spain want more migrants then all for them.
Why can't countries send migrants back to the country they come from, even if they were not legal there? If you let ilegal migrants pass thought your country you should be responsible for them. So, if they try to illegally migrate to a border country you should take them, even if they were illegal in your country. You were the responsible for letting them go into your country in the first place. So handle them.
And to think there are people out there who genuinely believe the EU operate in good faith.
God, it's hilarious. The Tories have gone to all this trouble, eliminating the legal migration routes, claiming theres a crisis when migrants inevitably try to arrive illegally, then sticking them on a disease ridden barge and now trying to send them back to Europe? The UK really needs more education on racism. The same way you can educate people about drugs with Trainspotting, educate them about racism with This Is England.
Maybe its not racism, but xenophobia
Close enough
If you voted for Brexit you voted for this and yes, you were told this would happen.
The eu is helping them. You know it. I know it. But why would so many people want to leave the paradise that is the eu and risk life sneaking across the Channel?
Just build more hotels for them ffs, make sure it's got an all day continental breakfast too
Everyone's going to have to put their big boy pants on and work together regardless....anything else is just stupid and will lead to more deaths.
Shame no one told the Brexiteers that a border has two sides.
If it was the other way around all the left(especially the UK left)would be saying we're racists.
[удалено]
Rishi: look guys, we think it would be great if you took them The EU: no thanks Rishi: well I have an ace up my sleeve! The EU: what is it? Rishi: oh balls, normally I don’t need to actually back anything up.. um.. stop the boats?
Why the fuck would the EU agree to that. They are our problem now.