Migrant crisis in the Channel

Heartbreaking to see 27 die trying to get across the Channel to this country but what can be done to stop the traffickers and the small dinghies and boats trying to get here? Why do so many migrants want to come here? Is it the lure of easy money and benefits that the likes of Farage will say is the reason?

Lots of newspapers showing images of French Police letting boats leave without trying to stop them but the problem starts a lot earlier for me. Look at the issues on the Polish border, people are getting into Europe by any means necessary and then trying to find a way here. Why are the first countries they arrive in not taking them in and assessing them?

The tragedy that happened yesterday is going to keep happening unless the EU and Britain come up with a plan to handle migrants.

Do the rules not state that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in or is this a myth?

If so then the EU are at fault.

I do think it is way past the time of expecting that France will do anything even with the amount of money we have sent them to sort this out and the UK must now act.

Sadly more will die continuing to try and cross over winter if something isn't done to remove incentives for them to cross.

As I understand it it’s a myth that people have to claim asylum at the first safe country. 

The right wing media would also have you believe there are more asylum seekers than ever, this is also false - it’s just more are being pushed to cross via the channel because security has tightened on other routes (such as lorries) and due to covid both air and sea have been less available over the last year.

The government regularly demonise those claiming asylum or devalue their claims with lies such as ‘70% are economic migrants’.

There’s no easy solution here but (as with Brexit) we need to start by debunking the false information so we have a clear view on how to resolve it. 

Increasing the number of safe passages available, and increasing targeted foreign aid would be a good starting point in making this route less attractive - but that won’t play well with the Tories xenophobic base.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As I understand it it’s a myth that people have to claim asylum at the first safe country. 

T.R.O.Y. wrote:..,we need to start by debunking the false information so we have a clear view on how to resolve it.

The Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in is the final decision in all EU countries.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604#d1e1042-31-1

Maybe you should start by debunking your own false information first before debunking anyone else's?

Fwiw I'm probably up to returning, perhaps initially on a part time basis, to the forum next week.

I'm sure you will all be delighted to hear that news!

I see your time away hasn't helped improve your tolerance level Sluffy 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

You should have waited longer before making a tit of yourself

T.R.O.Y. wrote:https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

You should have waited longer before making a tit of yourself

Hahaha!!!!

Are you serious???

The article that you link to quotes the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 ffs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

A lot's happened since then, in particular in respect of Europe, the Dublin Convention that came into force in 1997 and has been upheld by the European Court of Justice as recently as July 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

The European Court of Justice may I remind you is the is the supreme court of the European Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Are you really suggesting that they don't know the law and some random volunteers at a charity know better than they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

To spell it out to you, at the time of the link you posted to, which was the 17th January 2019, we were in the EU, under the Dublin Accord, which had been ratified by the supreme legal authority, which we were legally accountable to.

The last time you tried to pull me up about something similar was when you introduced me to your twitter mate Jolyon Maugham and believed every word he was saying because he was a barrister and hated the Tories!

Well he might of pulled the wool over your eyes but he's yet to prove anything at all substantial in the multitude of allegations and legal reviews that he constantly bangs on about!

Look I'm not in a state to argue with you ad nauseum like I've done in the past.

If you really think Supreme Court of Europe is wrong about upholding the Dublin Accord then go and tell them that they don't know what they are doing!

In fact why haven't your 'know it all' friends at Full Fact done the same if they are so sure about it?



It couldn't be because they were wrong could it?

You know, false information...

...that needs debunking...

...before some naive fool believes it...


And you call me a tit!!!

My Know it all friends at Full Fact

Do you understand the difference between an EU regulation and international law Sluffy? Do you also know we left the EU sluffy?

Welcome back!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:My Know it all friends at Full Fact

Do you understand the difference between an EU regulation and international law Sluffy? Do you also know we left the EU sluffy?

Welcome back!

Do you understand that at the time your 'Know it all friends' pontificated what they did in the link you posted, that we WERE in the EU and that the refugees were (and still are) subject to EU law in those country's.

Sluffy wrote:To spell it out to you, at the time of the link you posted to, which was the 17th January 2019, we were in the EU, under the Dublin Accord, which had been ratified by the supreme legal authority, which we were legally accountable to.

The only way in which the link was correct without any laws being broken was if the refugees came directly to our shores without entering any EU countries which clearly non of them ever did, short of hijacking a plane or sailing directly from Africa or America.

Even now with us being outside the EU unregistered refugees have broken EU law to get here, broken British law in entering our boarders illegally before the choose to 'pick' the international law to claim asylum here.

Seems such people only want to abide by the laws that suit them and ignore the rest.

I don't think anyone can possibly argue France is not a safe country - although your 'Know it all' mates do - see your own link...

"Although France is generally considered a “safe” potential country for asylum seekers, there is legal precedent to suggest France could potentially be considered a risk to an asylum seeker if the authorities fail to offer them the treatment they are entitled to".

...and as such are endeavouring to come to our shores for reasons other than for what all the laws on refugees are aimed at - namely safety and fear from persecution.


Thank you for your best wishes but I'm not up to returning fully nor probably will do for several more weeks yet.

As always, more concerned with trying to save face than address the actual point. 

Do Asylum seekers legally have to claim asylum in the first country they land in? No.

Simple as that, anything else you write is just noise now.

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha!!!!

Are you serious???

The article that you link to quotes the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 ffs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

A lot's happened since then, in particular in respect of Europe, the Dublin Convention that came into force in 1997 and has been upheld by the European Court of Justice as recently as July 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

The European Court of Justice may I remind you is the is the supreme court of the European Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Are you really suggesting that they don't know the law and some random volunteers at a charity know better than they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

To spell it out to you, at the time of the link you posted to, which was the 17th January 2019, we were in the EU, under the Dublin Accord, which had been ratified by the supreme legal authority, which we were legally accountable to.

The last time you tried to pull me up about something similar was when you introduced me to your twitter mate Jolyon Maugham and believed every word he was saying because he was a barrister and hated the Tories!

Well he might of pulled the wool over your eyes but he's yet to prove anything at all substantial in the multitude of allegations and legal reviews that he constantly bangs on about!

Look I'm not in a state to argue with you ad nauseum like I've done in the past.

If you really think Supreme Court of Europe is wrong about upholding the Dublin Accord then go and tell them that they don't know what they are doing!

In fact why haven't your 'know it all' friends at Full Fact done the same if they are so sure about it?



It couldn't be because they were wrong could it?

You know, false information...

...that needs debunking...

...before some naive fool believes it...


And you call me a tit!!!

Nice to hear from you, Sluffy. You are, of course, correct that Maugham is a darling of the lefties not least being the precious favourite of the inestimable tax avoider, Lord Vince of Rodborough.

Who bailed him out?



Hope to hear more from you soonest.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As always, more concerned with trying to save face than address the actual point. 

Do Asylum seekers legally have to claim asylum in the first country they land in? No.

Simple as that, anything else you write is just noise now.

Hahaha.

You're getting as bad as Wanderlust - where is he these days?

It's not ME looking to save face - it's Y0U.

The law we were under at the time whist in the EU - and more pointedly at the time the article linked to was published - was that refugees were required IN LAW to register at the EU country they first entered.

That was upheld by the Supreme Court of Europe with due regard for international conventions.

That as they say on the internet - is a FACT.

If you've got a problem with it take it up with them.

If you are in denial about it then that's your issue - pretending/believing it is not so doesn't change the fact that it is so.

On this thread you already initially started off by making a misinformed (that's my polite way of saying you made a false statement) remark, whilst claiming others should be checked for making misinformed/false statements.

You then compounded your ignorance by linking to a document that clearly contradicts the supreme law making court in the EU (which we were part of at the time).

Then if that wasn't enough, you clearly didn't read my post to you in which I stated we were in the EU at the time of the article, when you replied to me asking if I'd not realised we had left the EU.

And now you claim I'm the one looking to safe face ffs!!!

Mate I've told you nicely that I'm not my usual self and simply not up to the playing these games.

If you want to live in some sort of parallel world where leftist (or rightist) political dogma and propaganda is fed to the ignorant and easily led masses to swallow, then that's your choice.

And to be fair to you many people, maybe even the majority, do.

I'll stick to simple plain truth of the matters.

We don't live in a bad world (not here in the west anyway) unfortunately many people now believe we do because they swallow without question the garbage and misinformation that is fed to them with those who want to benefit through the change brought about by destabilising the system.

This is a very dangerous path we seem to have embarked on and one that will not end well unless we take care.

Right I need some rest now and don't intend to 'play' any further.

I bid you a good day.


Bob - thank you for your kind words.

I'll be back in time - no doubt sooner than a few would wish!

The question isn't about what law we were under 'at the time' the question is do asylum seekers legally have to claim asylum in the first 'safe' country they enter. 

The answer is no, next time you decide to pop your head up give it some more thought.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The question isn't about what law we were under 'at the time' the question is do asylum seekers legally have to claim asylum in the first 'safe' country they enter. 

The answer is no, next time you decide to pop your head up give it some more thought.

In Europe the answer is yes.

Twenty eight EU nations worked to that Dublin Accord at the time of the article you linked to.

Do you believe the legal professions on the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, etc, etc, etc were all acting illegally???

Of course they weren't!

I've give you fair warning I wasn't playing and to make my point abundantly clear I am locking the thread.

If you intend to wum me again in future whilst I'm not at my best it won't be just a thread I'll be locking either.

I trust I make myself understood.

We are talking about the current situation not 2019. 

Asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in their first safe country and we are not part of the Dublin regulation. It’s as simple as that.

Rather than claiming you’re being wound up and locking the thread you should accept that fact.

As I pointed out earlier and on the Brexit topic, until everyone is aligned on the facts the government can’t make sensible and effective policy - saying asylum seekers are illegally claiming asylum here is intended to shut down the discusion.

Glad to see this has been unlocked now.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:We are talking about the current situation not 2019. 

Asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in their first safe country and we are not part of the Dublin regulation. It’s as simple as that.

Rather than claiming you’re being wound up and locking the thread you should accept that fact.

As I pointed out earlier and on the Brexit topic, until everyone is aligned on the facts the government can’t make sensible and effective policy - saying asylum seekers are illegally claiming asylum here is intended to shut down the discusion.

1 - The article you linked to was answering a question in January 2019 when we were IN the EU.

Their 'verdict' which is just another word for THEIR opinion was that refugees COULD legitimately make a claim for asylum AFTER passing through other 'safe' country's.

That was clearly WRONG

The EU of which we were a part of at the time were legally bound to the Dublin Accord which stated they had to claim for asylum in the first safe country the arrived in.

2 - Instead of checking that out you referred me to that article pointed out we aren't in the EU now and called me a tit (I've been called far worse)

3 - I pointed out to you that the article you linked to was written when we WERE in the EU and therefore what they were saying at the time was clearly bollocks.

4 - You then tried to make out that I was more concerned with saving face than address the point about whether refugees needed to claim asylum in the first safe country they came to or not.

5 - Considering the article is 'someone's' 'verdict' and was clearly factually WRONG at the time it was wrote, that I (nor you) should be relying on its accuracy now that we've left the EU.

I have no idea what (if any) legal ties we may or may not be bound with in respect of the Dublin Accord, or alternatively what if anything we have replaced it with in law ourselves.

6 - All this started because I pointed out to you about your 'false information' contained in your initial post, when you were complaining about others posting 'false information'!!!

The EU clearly does not work legally to the premise you put forward that it was a myth that people do not have to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive at - in the EU they clearly DO have to seek asylum in the first safe country.

7 - If the EU is LEGALLY working in a way contrary to the 'verdict' of the Full Fact voluntary organisation you linked to then how many other country's in the world are working legally in a similar way too?

Fwiw I wouldn't rely on an article stating an opinion, with no references to current British case law, that was clearly wrong at the time it was written, to suddenly be correct now.

Clearly you do!

Yet somehow I'm the one who is a tit, trying to save face and close down the argument when you aren't the one posting 'fake news' not trying to save your face and relying as the core of your ongoing argument on an article not backed up with any British case law and was factually wrong when the article was first published!!!

If you want to continue this then simply back up your argument with some actually current UK statute or case law and I'd be more than happy to accept whatever it states.

Maybe you should ask your buddies at Full Fact, I'm sure they'd be only to pleased to help!

Norpig wrote:Glad to see this has been unlocked for now.

Fixed this for you.

karlypants wrote:

Fixed this for you.  

i may start taking bets on when the plug gets pulled again 

Thanks for unlocking, this is arguably the most important thread open at the moment and certainly the most contentious. For me there are two areas that need resolving. Firstly, I just find it hard to believe that two major world powers like Uk and France, with all their intelligence resources, can’t identify and eliminate, the people smuggling gangs. It’s time we forgot about the PC brigade with scum like like them and took whatever measures were necessary to break them. 

Secondly, it’s time that the French stopped the showboating on this and held serious discussions with the UK on both preventing and agreeing what to do with migrants when they do arrive here. Clearly the French don’t want these individuals any more than we do and are just glad to see the back of them, that’s clear with their police physically turning a blind eye to them just yards away on the beach. We know Macrons in election mode so it’s in his interest to act tough for his home audience but more deaths might just work against him.

Also, it’s clear that many, if not most, of the migrants arriving here currently are in fact Algerian and I’m not aware of any threat to their lives there, so basically they are not refugees but financial migrants and should not be given any refuge here but returned immediately. In fact they don’t have any right to refugee status in the EU either, so why are they allowing them in. At this moment however, with winter coming on, the most important thing is their safety and for France and the EU themselves to even allow these people to risk their lives crossing the channel without doing everything to prevent it is a total disgrace but sadly only normal for these self interested individuals.