FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rwanda
Rwanda
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel "So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel  | |||
"Find it hard to believe you don’t know about Rwanda OP, considering you like the news ! As for the country itself it is now listed as the 11th safest country in the world, but is also one of the poorest. " Well this story is all over the news and Geography and News are separate in many ways .. Is it a nice place to visit? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel
So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel "Exactly , | |||
"Find it hard to believe you don’t know about Rwanda OP, considering you like the news ! As for the country itself it is now listed as the 11th safest country in the world, but is also one of the poorest. Well this story is all over the news and Geography and News are separate in many ways .. Is it a nice place to visit?" Never been | |||
"Find it hard to believe you don’t know about Rwanda OP, considering you like the news ! As for the country itself it is now listed as the 11th safest country in the world, but is also one of the poorest. Well this story is all over the news and Geography and News are separate in many ways .. Is it a nice place to visit?" Scenery supposedly beautiful , politically deadly if you don’t tow the line. Lots of people disappear and killings of political opponents. I don’t think some penniless refugees will be getting the best welcome. | |||
"Find it hard to believe you don’t know about Rwanda OP, considering you like the news ! As for the country itself it is now listed as the 11th safest country in the world, but is also one of the poorest. Well this story is all over the news and Geography and News are separate in many ways .. Is it a nice place to visit? Scenery supposedly beautiful , politically deadly if you don’t tow the line. Lots of people disappear and killings of political opponents. I don’t think some penniless refugees will be getting the best welcome. " Some fab sources saying it is listed as the 11 th safest country in the world | |||
| |||
"Find it hard to believe you don’t know about Rwanda OP, considering you like the news ! As for the country itself it is now listed as the 11th safest country in the world, but is also one of the poorest. Well this story is all over the news and Geography and News are separate in many ways .. Is it a nice place to visit?" Arsenal fc seem to think so they advertise it, seems it has a nice ambient temperature so they wont have to worry about heating bills. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel "---------- Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel.... Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise.... ----------- | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------"Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe "------ I didn't say you couldn't. They can stay in France and apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally. It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me. Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion. ----------- | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
"Then the uk should provide them with safe passage | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage "no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe "------ Wrong? Which part is wrong? ------ | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage "------ Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..? -------- | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel "Are Denmark using Rwanda too? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe "---- Precisely... -------- | |||
| |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------"Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------"Why should they stay in France? | |||
| |||
"This is yet another blatant racist policy as it will exclusively apply to black or brown asylum seekers. I highly doubt Ukrainian refugees will be shipped off to Rwanda." Tbf, it won’t happen, it is just a gimmick and vote winner for the racist/ukip element in the Tory party, | |||
"This is yet another blatant racist policy as it will exclusively apply to black or brown asylum seekers. I highly doubt Ukrainian refugees will be shipped off to Rwanda. Tbf, it won’t happen, it is just a gimmick and vote winner for the racist/ukip element in the Tory party, " I that’s exactly what I thought too when I heard it but the fact he (and the Tory party) not only thought of it, but actually voiced it, speaks volumes of the man and the party. | |||
| |||
| |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ?" Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. | |||
 | |||
"Ahhh but it's a brexit benefit according to Boris "So did JRM fail to spot this, or is Boris stealing his homework to take the credit. Os this the first “official” benefit? | |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. " But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question | |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question " From wikitravel: "Rwanda is a relatively stable East African country, and easily accessible from Kenya and Uganda. It is relatively easy, safe and simple to travel around. It is landlocked, surrounded by Uganda to the north, Tanzania to the east, Burundi to the south, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the west. Rwanda is not only the land of a thousand hills, but also a country rich in flora and fauna and stunning natural beauty in its scenic rolling and breathtaking green savannah. The country hosts some rare species of animals like the silverback mountain gorillas as well as unique birds and insects in the tropical forest of Nyungwe." Hope this helps. | |||
| |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question " Yes it is | |||
"Ahhh but it's a brexit benefit according to Boris "Really? But Denmark (in the EU) have done the same | |||
| |||
"Ahhh but it's a brexit benefit according to Boris
So did JRM fail to spot this, or is Boris stealing his homework to take the credit. Os this the first “official” benefit? ". ,,, ,, ,, yet again Johnson claims a brexit benefit which isn't a brexit benefit , ,Denmark have the same plan , , Denmark are in the EU. ,, ( Try again Boris ) | |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question Yes it is " Yet the afghan interviewed on the news exclaimed it was probably worse than where he came from. Rwanda might have nice scenery and a good climate - but i expect that’s about the only thing positive. There’s a reason the tories have chosen this approach. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------
Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu. "----- I understand fully that they can apply for asylum anywhere... but to suggest that the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country is a joke... HaHaHaHaha.... That isn't asylum, that's tourism.! They can stay in France, apply for asylum anywhere they choose, and then when approved they can travel safely and legally without having to get into a rubber boat.... ---------- | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------
Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu. "------ Have YOU still not realised that they can apply for asylum from France,(a safe country) and when approved they can then travel freely to their destination of choice, without having to risk their lives trying to enter the uk illegally by rubber dinghy....... ----------- | |||
| |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question Yes it is " Why? Who has actually been there on holiday? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------
Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu.
-----
I understand fully that they can apply for asylum anywhere... but to suggest that the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country is a joke...
HaHaHaHaha....
That isn't asylum, that's tourism.!
They can stay in France, apply for asylum anywhere they choose, and then when approved they can travel safely and legally without having to get into a rubber boat....
----------"No you can’t , | |||
"But is Rwanda a nice place to holiday? That was the original question ? Shipping humans to a immigration camp in Rwanda isn't a holiday. But is Rwanda a nice place to go on holiday.. that is the question Yes it is Why? Who has actually been there on holiday?" Tom wants to go, I think he should | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? "because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?"You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?"The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect "Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? "whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol"Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol
Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming "people voted for lots of different reasons I didn’t vote to stop immigration I wanted it slowed down stop putting everyone down for how they voted you post more on this thread than most so your the one obsessed lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel
Are Denmark using Rwanda too?"Actually just seen the story from last year and it is Rwanda that Denmark have an agreement with. Wonder why Rwanda is the go to place lately. Looks like Denmark have been much stricter on refugees lately | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol
Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming people voted for lots of different reasons I didn’t vote to stop immigration I wanted it slowed down stop putting everyone down for how they voted you post more on this thread than most so your the one obsessed lol"Your all obsessed, do you think sending them to Rwanda at a huge cost to the tax payer is the solution (it is what the OP is about) and do you think Brexit has helped? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel
Are Denmark using Rwanda too?
Actually just seen the story from last year and it is Rwanda that Denmark have an agreement with. Wonder why Rwanda is the go to place lately. Looks like Denmark have been much stricter on refugees lately"but no outrage for Denmark tho lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol
Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming people voted for lots of different reasons I didn’t vote to stop immigration I wanted it slowed down stop putting everyone down for how they voted you post more on this thread than most so your the one obsessed lol
Your all obsessed, do you think sending them to Rwanda at a huge cost to the tax payer is the solution (it is what the OP is about) and do you think Brexit has helped? "no I don’t think it’s money we’ll spent at all could be spent on getting veterans of the streets but that would boil yr piss as it’s not left enough | |||
| |||
"On a side issue. The dangers of the English Channel are greatly loverplayed in the Press. It is safer to cross the Channel dodging ships than it is to cross the M6 at rush our .. and I mean when the traffic is moving obs" so not often then lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol
Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming people voted for lots of different reasons I didn’t vote to stop immigration I wanted it slowed down stop putting everyone down for how they voted you post more on this thread than most so your the one obsessed lol
Your all obsessed, do you think sending them to Rwanda at a huge cost to the tax payer is the solution (it is what the OP is about) and do you think Brexit has helped? no I don’t think it’s money we’ll spent at all could be spent on getting veterans of the streets but that would boil yr piss as it’s not left enough "It's not an either/or situation. The government isn't interested in helping Brits or immigrants. | |||
" Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?" Obviously perceived as bad enough to give Boris his badly needed leg up on the career ladder! | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
You think it is, let me explain yet again, they don’t have to apply for asylum in the first safe country, why are Brexit voters so obsessed with refugees ? whos obsessed your posting more than most it’s a topic about refugees lol
Your all obsessed, you voted to stop this and it’s made it worse, no wonder your all fuming people voted for lots of different reasons I didn’t vote to stop immigration I wanted it slowed down stop putting everyone down for how they voted you post more on this thread than most so your the one obsessed lol
Your all obsessed, do you think sending them to Rwanda at a huge cost to the tax payer is the solution (it is what the OP is about) and do you think Brexit has helped? no I don’t think it’s money we’ll spent at all could be spent on getting veterans of the streets but that would boil yr piss as it’s not left enough "Why don’t you offer to house some of these homeless veterans? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers? "It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way. So not the same at all | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all "I see, these people make up a very small minority , sending them to Rwanda is a complete and utter waste of money | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all "With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped. In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels. The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it. In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK. The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem. (the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste) If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France. For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them! Interesting... | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all "Thaw majority are granted asylum 75%+ so why are we spending billions on a few economic migrants that slip in? Just give them a job as there are a lot of vacancies and we need workers now the Europeans have left. It’s just posturing bullshit , a waste of money and it throws the dead cat on the table to avoid the real issues which are the complete and utter mismanagement of Brexit and our economy. We are in the shit because of their actions and they don’t know what to do. In the last 40+ years the Tories have been in charge for most of that time including the last decade. Poverty growing , food banks growing , tax revenue dropping now , debt increasing even allowing for Covid.. bit of a mess so let’s pick on sone brown people in boats. The increase in vat revenue due to inflation is paid by the people so they are worse off. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting..."They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water. Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
"Isn't that exactly what people who vote Conservative/UKIP would do here if they saw these people getting in boats and leaving? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
Isn't that exactly what people who vote Conservative/UKIP would do here if they saw these people getting in boats and leaving?"No, they would shout obscenities and throw rocks at them . | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
"No they don’t We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks.. the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence . Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks. "But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) "so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol | |||
| |||
| |||
"We need a word for having the good fortune of being born in Britain. Western privalage? " So we should continually beat ourselves up because of where we are born now  | |||
"We need a word for having the good fortune of being born in Britain. Western privalage? So we should continually beat ourselves up because of where we are born now "beta ourselves ? In what way ? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol"Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . | |||
"We need a word for having the good fortune of being born in Britain. Western privalage? So we should continually beat ourselves up because of where we are born now "No we should keep beating up Iraq, Syria etc . You know the places these people are fleeing from. If we don’t have refugees there won’t be any reason for Priti to be so evil . Tories gotta Tory | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . "ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol"Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? "a bit shit at what ? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? "you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol | |||
"We need a word for having the good fortune of being born in Britain. Western privalage? So we should continually beat ourselves up because of where we are born now "Whose asking you to beat yourself up? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? "if you don't think Britain is winning at everything, that makes you a leftie. At least it feels that way sometimes | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol"Erm we’ve got 22mikes of water to help .. you have heard of the channel I assume? Everyone is to blame but Boris PMSL | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Erm we’ve got 22mikes of water to help .. you have heard of the channel I assume?
Everyone is to blame but Boris PMSL "eh where did I say everyone is to blame but Boris lol and yes iv heard of the channel that but of water they cross from beach’s in France every day without being caught it’s a fucking miracle | |||
| |||
| |||
"If you are an economic migrant that wants to come to the UK but now learn that if you survive the crossing instead of being kept in the UK for many months while your application is processed you will now be flown straight to Rwanda, would you be more or less inclined to risk the trip" And you think they keep an eye on the politics of Priti Patel lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Erm we’ve got 22mikes of water to help .. you have heard of the channel I assume?
Everyone is to blame but Boris PMSL eh where did I say everyone is to blame but Boris lol and yes iv heard of the channel that but of water they cross from beach’s in France every day without being caught it’s a fucking miracle "You do know an asylum seeker is free to travel to the next country so technically they we not doing anything illegal and the French are doing us a favour. | |||
| |||
"So leaving Frances coastline is because the police are shit. But making it to the UK's coast is not our border patrols fault ? " if the french police weren’t a shower of shit we wouldn’t have a problem would we ffs surely to god you don’t have to blame everything in the U.K. just to make yourself feel good do you | |||
"So leaving Frances coastline is because the police are shit. But making it to the UK's coast is not our border patrols fault ? if the french police weren’t a shower of shit we wouldn’t have a problem would we ffs surely to god you don’t have to blame everything in the U.K. just to make yourself feel good do you " I'm trying the square off the logic. The same people are evading two sets of law enforcement. And we don't know how many the French stop either. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol"I don’t need to. My friends around the world know full well we only really have a maximum of 17.4m idiots in the UK. | |||
"If you are an economic migrant that wants to come to the UK but now learn that if you survive the crossing instead of being kept in the UK for many months while your application is processed you will now be flown straight to Rwanda, would you be more or less inclined to risk the trip And you think they keep an eye on the politics of Priti Patel lol " If it ever passes into law then it will be UK policy and yes people will know. So would they be more inclined or less inclined | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol
I don’t need to. My friends around the world know full well we only really have a maximum of 17.4m idiots in the UK."yet you still live here amazing lol | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------
Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu.
-----
I understand fully that they can apply for asylum anywhere... but to suggest that the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country is a joke...
HaHaHaHaha....
That isn't asylum, that's tourism.!
They can stay in France, apply for asylum anywhere they choose, and then when approved they can travel safely and legally without having to get into a rubber boat....
----------
No you can’t ,
"------ No you cant , what?? Doesn't make any sense. The solution is to build a foot bridge... but only for those who want to enter the uk illegally. The law abiding asylum-seekers who apply legally can take their chance on P&O ferries etc... whilst the illegal economic migrants will still be able to jump the queue... but without even getting their feet wet... --------- | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol
I don’t need to. My friends around the world know full well we only really have a maximum of 17.4m idiots in the UK.yet you still live here amazing lol"Is that that options. Pretend everything is fine pretend brexit is a good idea, or emigrate? Should everyone who questions the government be forced out of the country? | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
------
Are you saying the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country..?
--------
Yeah. Have you still not realised, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum any where, maybe they have heard the sunlit uplands or don’t want to live in the Eu.
-----
I understand fully that they can apply for asylum anywhere... but to suggest that the uk should provide safe passage from one safe country to another safe country is a joke...
HaHaHaHaha....
That isn't asylum, that's tourism.!
They can stay in France, apply for asylum anywhere they choose, and then when approved they can travel safely and legally without having to get into a rubber boat....
----------
No you can’t ,
------
No you cant , what??
Doesn't make any sense.
The solution is to build a foot bridge... but only for those who want to enter the uk illegally.
The law abiding asylum-seekers who apply legally can take their chance on P&O ferries etc... whilst the illegal economic migrants will still be able to jump the queue... but without even getting their feet wet...
---------"You can’t (currently) apply for asylum in the UK in another country, | |||
| |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol
I don’t need to. My friends around the world know full well we only really have a maximum of 17.4m idiots in the UK.yet you still live here amazing lol
Is that that options.
Pretend everything is fine pretend brexit is a good idea, or emigrate?
Should everyone who questions the government be forced out of the country?"I was talking to one guy not everyone petal calm yaself down it’s an option I would consider if I thought 17.4 million adults where idiots in th U.K. how could you possibly live here if that’s what you thought ? | |||
"Reports that some asylum seekers will take their own lives rather than be send to Rwanda.. this won't pan out well for Priti" She won’t care and some of her supporters will see it as ‘one less mouth to feed’ | |||
"Reports that some asylum seekers will take their own lives rather than be send to Rwanda.. this won't pan out well for Priti" Why not? Sounds like the kind of win she's looking for. | |||
| |||
"Well two issues here.. if sending people to Rwanda is designed as a deterrent and by implication that Rwanda is a terrible place then aren't we guilty of colonial thinking .. Thinking how great we are here and how aweful it is in Africa.. could it be our colonial priviliged thinking kicking in.. I am sure there are worse places to be sent than Rwanda.. It could have been a Scottish island .. " A Scottish island? Now that’s just cruel. We already treat them badly by putting them in Britannia hotels. Voted worst hotel group for last nine years. | |||
| |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage "Seems like the UK are providing a safe passage A safe passage to Rwanda | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
Seems like the UK are providing a safe passage
A safe passage to Rwanda "Much better than watching them sail away in a rubber dinghy though like th french police do. | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
"Nor is it in the opinion of the UN convention on refugees who should apply for asylum in the FIRST country they come to....that's not even France! | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? "Because it is a safe, EU country....or maybe their policies being far less favourable than ours is the driving force? | |||
" Why should they stay in France? ?" They would have to learn French while being made to feel just as unwelcome as they would be here while learning the language which they believe will be more useful to them. However, they probably haven't thought through thee advantage of paying French rates for electricity. | |||
"All I can say from what I have heard from the average conversation the last few days is that Boris has tapped right into a goldmine with this one. Most frequently I hear things along the lines of " Great idea, far too many of them coming in" "We haven't got any more room". Johnson is obviously not the fool that he looks. Attention diverted away from the mess he is in, all done by careful analysis of his supporters' prejudices. Many of them are such morons that they usually add "Where the hall is Rwanda? Never heard of it". Shows how valid their input is likely to be on world affairs. There is lots of mileage to be gained from keeping these types on side. Clever Boris and Priti. Vote winning is what it is all about." And there is also quite some irony at Easter for all those so called Christians (like Jacob Reece Mogg) because had Jesus been escaping from Roman persecution in Palestine, he would have been accused of being an economic migrant and shipped off to Rwanda! | |||
" And there is also quite some irony at Easter for all those so called Christians (like Jacob Reece Mogg) because had Jesus been escaping from Roman persecution in Palestine, he would have been accused of being an economic migrant and shipped off to Rwanda!" Jesus? Who's that....not seen him on here! | |||
"Denmark passed the bill to do it last year due to the Influx in numbers that needed to be processed. We need to stop the people smuggling somehow there are too many deaths on the channel. So give them an easier route into the UK, then they wont require to be smuggled or risk death in the channel
----------
Or, here's an idea... since France is a perfectly safe country, they stay in France and don't risk their lives by setting off across the channel....
Asylum is about providing a place of safety... it's not about simply choosing a destination and trying to get there by any means, illegal or otherwise....
-----------
Wrong, you can apply for asylum wherever you like, the vast majority stay in mainland Europe
------
I didn't say you couldn't.
They can stay in France and
apply for asylum wherever they wish.. then, if successful, they can enter safely and legally.
It's the getting in a boat, risking lives, and trying to enter illegally which concerns me.
Trying to enter a safe country from another safe country isn't asylum-seeking, in my opinion.
-----------
Then the uk should provide them with safe passage
no the U.K. shouldn’t as they arnt at risk in France or anywhere else in Europe
----
Precisely...
--------
Why should they stay in France? because it’s safe the channel isn’t if they are really fleeing war then why risk there lives in the channel is the eu really that bad ?
The French don’t put them up in hotels, give them spending money ect
Then why do the vast majority of them stay in France and Germany? Why are Brexit supporters so obsessed with asylum seekers?
It’s not asylum seekers that are the problem it’s the economic migrants bypassing the system by coming in the wrong way.
So not the same at all
With this most recent announcement about Rwanda together with the French Elections where Marie Le Pen has oppenely said that she would scrap the Le Touquet Treaty, it is likely that whoever wins - the Treaty will be reviewed again and either modified or scrapped.
In essence, the treaty allows for reciprocal border controls of French and UK officials in each other’s countries, which is why French passport control officers work in Dover or at London St Pancras station and British passport control officers can be seen in French ports including Calais and at Gare du Nord. Later in 2004 the treaty was extended to include pre-departure checks of passengers boarding the Eurostar in Brussels.
The agreement is not uncontroversial and there are regular calls from French politicians to scrap it.
In a nutshell, the argument is this – the British say the French are not doing enough to prevent the highly dangerous small-boat crossings undertaken by desperate people, many of whom go on to claim asylum in the UK.
The French, on the other hand, say they spend millions every year policing the northern coastline (only a small fraction of the cost of which is covered by payments from the UK) on what is essentially a British problem.
(the above has been taken from a subscribed website and, rather than repeat it in a different format, I though it more straightforward to copy and paste)
If this treaty is scrapped then there will cease to be a border control in France.
For the French this would mean that they no longer need to spend money, time and effort doing a thankless task and that, should the UK transport prospective immegrants to Rwanda, it would save the French (and other mainland European countries) having to worry about the cost of keeping them!
Interesting...
They don’t stop the boats now anyway all it takes is a stanly knife and the boat would not be able to take to the water.
Instead the Local Gendarmes just walk up and down watching them take to the water and wave them off with a cheery Bon voyage.
No they don’t
We have logistics services in Dunkerque and the police are constantly battling with the refugees and asylum seekers trying to leave. They keep breaking up their camps and dragging them off trucks..
the French prosecutor has opened cases against the police and gendarmes for their inappropriate violence .
Don’t believe the right wing media bollocks.
But but but, there was a video showing (sort off) the French police watching the immigrants leaving (again, sort off) in the Sun, so obviously (apparently) thus is happening all the time (sensible people realise it isn’t ) so the french police are doing a great job then eh lol
Just like border force at Dover, Manchester, Heathrow. Etc etc
If you don’t have the staff those that are trying may in fact be doing an excellent job. The places there are no staff then you can’t complain can you . ffs if the french weren’t so fucking useless mate our border force could cope and ye beat ourselves up for being British atleast the loony lefts will be happy they thrive with guilt lol
Hey what about us moderate centrists who also think that lately the UK is looking a bit shit? you could hang your head in shame and apolagize when on holiday for being British like the rest of them if it makes you feel better crack on lol
I don’t need to. My friends around the world know full well we only really have a maximum of 17.4m idiots in the UK.yet you still live here amazing lol
Is that that options.
Pretend everything is fine pretend brexit is a good idea, or emigrate?
Should everyone who questions the government be forced out of the country?I was talking to one guy not everyone petal calm yaself down it’s an option I would consider if I thought 17.4 million adults where idiots in th U.K. how could you possibly live here if that’s what you thought ?"Missed this lol. Well seeing as c.48 million either voted remain, didn’t vote or couldn’t vote, and seeing as all the polls show that a majority of that 17.4m have buyers remorse over voting leave, then it is pure mathematics. Most people were never or are no longer idiots! | |||
| |||
"Considering the polls said that the British public would mostly vote for remain does not bode well for the reliability of polls " there is that | |||
| |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama" That's three people. Not sure how much Obama had to do with it. But Cameron is definitely partly to blame. | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama That's three people. Not sure how much Obama had to do with it. But Cameron is definitely partly to blame." And his Bullingdon mate | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama" I always looked at those who voted leave. My bad. | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'BamaI always looked at those who voted leave. My bad. " It was their fault too. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"so the bill has been passed on Wednesday night with the lords backing it. "Because returning the legislation a fourth time was considered inappropriate. The upper chamber cannot frustrate the elected house of it simply won't listen. Miraculously, there are parts of government that still function with some sense of responsibility... | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama" Despite all 3 supporting/campaigning to remain.....? | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama Despite all 3 supporting/campaigning to remain.....?" Yep...Project Fear cost them | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama Despite all 3 supporting/campaigning to remain.....? Yep...Project Fear cost them" So you're saying that the pro brexit press labelling real life consequences of brexit as "project fear", is somehow Obama's fault? Bold claim. Fair play to you. | |||
"The two cretins that cost the UK membership of the EU were Cameron and Osborne backed up by O'Bama Despite all 3 supporting/campaigning to remain.....?" it's their fault their "lies" werent as nice to hear as leaves "lies". They needed to promise more cake. | |||
"backed up by O'Bama" Is he an Irish politician ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I work in Kigali occasionally and know quite a few emigrants most U.K. Pakistanis that created businesses there. it’s a great place to live and work , a city in the mountains, extremely friendly people full of smiles. After the genocide they made huge changes, it’s the most gender equal country in Africa and 2nd or 3rd in the world. There’s a ministry of gender statistics, ministry of family and I think in law 50% of judges are females now. They have very numbers of female CFO and this is seen as a contributing factor to GDP as it reduces fraud and corruption. No one mentions ethnicity now, it’s almost forbidden, everyone is just Rwandan. I love the motorbike taxis around town, loads of coffee shops and milk bars, and trips up the cities mountain for sunset. Looking forward to my next trip in a few months " Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘ | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘ "To get votes in a few days' time. Why else? | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?"Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy | |||
| |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy "Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist? | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist? "Apparently so  | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
Apparently so "would racists be unhappy with sending them to Rwanda? All pigeons are birds, but not all birds are pigeons (That said, it's bait ) | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist? "No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum "But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum
But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system "Not according to British courts. | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum
But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system "what is the system? | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum
But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system "Nope, wrong again | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum
But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system "No they are not despite all the headlines in the express and Mail always starting with “illegal”. They only become illegal if they don’t report within a reasonable period from arrival. Arriving here in a boat is not illegal. The government are not changing the full laws regarding this so I smell a very large PR stunt. If they are blocked by legal rulings they will say we tried and the left wing Do-Gooders stopped us. This plays perfectly into the right wing anti immigration and extreme Brexit voters. Despite all the government outrage maybe people should think about the fact that 75% of the arrivals are granted asylum more or less straight away so they basically do indeed have every reason to claim asylum. Yet the rhetoric is we are being overwhelmed by “illegal” immigrants. Apparently the truth is we’re not. | |||
" Sounds great, why are they sending them there as a ‘deterrent ‘
To get votes in a few days' time. Why else?
Exactly, they have to keep there racist voters happy Are you saying that the people who are against illegal immigration are racist?
No, I am saying that every racist will love the ‘policy ‘ of sending immigrants to Rwanda. Btw, an immigrant is not illegal until they have been denied asylum
But they are illegal if they come across in a little boat bypassing the system
No they are not despite all the headlines in the express and Mail always starting with “illegal”.
They only become illegal if they don’t report within a reasonable period from arrival.
Arriving here in a boat is not illegal.
The government are not changing the full laws regarding this so I smell a very large PR stunt.
If they are blocked by legal rulings they will say we tried and the left wing Do-Gooders stopped us. This plays perfectly into the right wing anti immigration and extreme Brexit voters.
Despite all the government outrage maybe people should think about the fact that 75% of the arrivals are granted asylum more or less straight away so they basically do indeed have every reason to claim asylum. Yet the rhetoric is we are being overwhelmed by “illegal” immigrants. Apparently the truth is we’re not. "Spot on | |||
| |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ?" Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed " These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed " And anyone who denies that Rwanda is not a safe country surely is being colonial in thinking and racist no? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. " Why do they need sanctuary from amphibious mammals? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. Why do they need sanctuary from amphibious mammals? " A drowning man clutches at straws | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed " Reverse racism at its best.. | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. Why do they need sanctuary from amphibious mammals? A drowning man clutches at straws " Does he? When did France become ‘war torn ‘ | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed Reverse racism at its best.. " What is? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. Why do they need sanctuary from amphibious mammals? A drowning man clutches at straws Does he? When did France become ‘war torn ‘ " When people like you say that migrants crossing the channel.are fleeing an unsafe country...wake up and keep up slowcoach | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed These poor creatures are fleeing war torn France.. they need sanctuary from the Frogs.. that sanctuary is in Rwanda .. Why do they need sanctuary from amphibious mammals? A drowning man clutches at straws Does he? When did France become ‘war torn ‘ When people like you say that migrants crossing the channel.are fleeing an unsafe country...wake up and keep up slowcoach " What had that got to do with war torn France and amphibious mammals ? Have you been out migrant watching with Farage, your very confused? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Yes, apparently it is a great place to visit . Can we assume that the UK is a safe space and that is what is needed And anyone who denies that Rwanda is not a safe country surely is being colonial in thinking and racist no?" All most people know about Rwanda is the genocide and it was horrific, approx 1 million people hacked & clubbed to death in just 100 days by organised gangs creating road blocks to prevent anyone leaving and then going house to house with lists of names provided by the government. People killing their own neighbours and work colleagues, tendons being cut to stop people crawling away, children forced at gunpoint to execute & r*pe their own patents…. I can see why people would assume it isn’t safe place. But amazingly it’s reconciled and moved on to be a one of the nicest and safest places I know in Africa. | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ?" Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France?" The majority of migrants stay in France . | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France?" France would ask the same about Spain say ... They are fleeing persecution etc from their home country. They wish to claim asylum in the UK. A right we've signed up to. Therefore they need to travel thru France. They aren't gleeeing France bit are forced to go there to get to the UK Usually thenarhument boils down to wanting asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country. But that's a selfish view imo. We say we can't take on a few thousand. And we have a huge GDP. Yet we expect a country to take on millions, with less resources, just because they happen to be next to a warzone. Maybe there is another angle I'm missing, bit that's the only conclusion I get to with the "feeling France" argument. (Solution: allow claims to be made in designated areas not on UK soil. Process in the first safe country. This cuts the oxhen of smugglers). | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France? France would ask the same about Spain say ... They are fleeing persecution etc from their home country. They wish to claim asylum in the UK. A right we've signed up to. Therefore they need to travel thru France. They aren't gleeeing France bit are forced to go there to get to the UK Usually thenarhument boils down to wanting asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country. But that's a selfish view imo. We say we can't take on a few thousand. And we have a huge GDP. Yet we expect a country to take on millions, with less resources, just because they happen to be next to a warzone. Maybe there is another angle I'm missing, bit that's the only conclusion I get to with the "feeling France" argument. (Solution: allow claims to be made in designated areas not on UK soil. Process in the first safe country. This cuts the oxhen of smugglers). " But there is the suspicion that they are not all asylum seekers. This suspicion is raised due to the high percentage of them being young men. | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France? France would ask the same about Spain say ... They are fleeing persecution etc from their home country. They wish to claim asylum in the UK. A right we've signed up to. Therefore they need to travel thru France. They aren't gleeeing France bit are forced to go there to get to the UK Usually thenarhument boils down to wanting asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country. But that's a selfish view imo. We say we can't take on a few thousand. And we have a huge GDP. Yet we expect a country to take on millions, with less resources, just because they happen to be next to a warzone. Maybe there is another angle I'm missing, bit that's the only conclusion I get to with the "feeling France" argument. (Solution: allow claims to be made in designated areas not on UK soil. Process in the first safe country. This cuts the oxhen of smugglers). But there is the suspicion that they are not all asylum seekers. This suspicion is raised due to the high percentage of them being young men. " Why can't young men be asylum seekers? | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France? France would ask the same about Spain say ... They are fleeing persecution etc from their home country. They wish to claim asylum in the UK. A right we've signed up to. Therefore they need to travel thru France. They aren't gleeeing France bit are forced to go there to get to the UK Usually thenarhument boils down to wanting asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country. But that's a selfish view imo. We say we can't take on a few thousand. And we have a huge GDP. Yet we expect a country to take on millions, with less resources, just because they happen to be next to a warzone. Maybe there is another angle I'm missing, bit that's the only conclusion I get to with the "feeling France" argument. (Solution: allow claims to be made in designated areas not on UK soil. Process in the first safe country. This cuts the oxhen of smugglers). But there is the suspicion that they are not all asylum seekers. This suspicion is raised due to the high percentage of them being young men. Why can't young men be asylum seekers?" Who said they can’t ? but it does make you wonder. | |||
"Can we assume that Rwanda is a safe space and that is what is needed ? Maybe yes...maybe no. But why isn't France a safe place? The people arriving here in boats are not fleeing Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan etc....tgey are fleeing France. Surely we should be asking why that is? What is so wrong with France? France would ask the same about Spain say ... They are fleeing persecution etc from their home country. They wish to claim asylum in the UK. A right we've signed up to. Therefore they need to travel thru France. They aren't gleeeing France bit are forced to go there to get to the UK Usually thenarhument boils down to wanting asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country. But that's a selfish view imo. We say we can't take on a few thousand. And we have a huge GDP. Yet we expect a country to take on millions, with less resources, just because they happen to be next to a warzone. Maybe there is another angle I'm missing, bit that's the only conclusion I get to with the "feeling France" argument. (Solution: allow claims to be made in designated areas not on UK soil. Process in the first safe country. This cuts the oxhen of smugglers). But there is the suspicion that they are not all asylum seekers. This suspicion is raised due to the high percentage of them being young men. Why can't young men be asylum seekers?" Responding to whole quote not most recent point. 1) 75% of asylum seekers processed are found to be genuine and “deserving of asylum”. 2) Men escaping persecution are less likely to be physically/sexually exploited while enroute. 3) In the countries they are fleeing, men are far more mobile and able to travel and physically escape. 4) Like it or not International Law/Agreements (signed up to by the UK) states that asylum seekers can claim asylum in any country of their choosing. 5) Why the UK? Well it is thought of as one of the richest countries in the world. It is thought of as being a fairly liberal and compassionate society (especially compared to where they are escaping from). It is seen as having a generous benefits system. But most importantly we speak English. The most widely spoken language in the world (and certainly the most spoken 2nd language in the world). They cannot reach USA, Canada, Australia or NZ or Ireland (as easily) and don’t want to go to SA. 6) If you look at the nationality split of asylum seekers coming to UK the largest proportion of them come from countries that were either part of our Colonial past or are countries where we have intervened militarily. 7) Are some of the asylum seekers not genuine and in actual fact economic migrants? For sure yes. But based on the 75% granted asylum it is clearly the minority. | |||
