Brexit Penny Dropping?

[Eris]

34 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

I think you'll find a number of them are entitled to be here, whether you agree with it or not. The laws may have changed since they were granted entry into the country but that doesn't give them any less right to be here. 

As I said, show how you would deal with it. 

The issue is not those people legally in the UK, it is those who are not and I have offered a solution on how those who are not in the UK legally could and IMO should be dealt with

Edited August 3, 2022 by Eris

[jackwhite]

21 minutes ago, Eris said:

The issue is not those people legally in the UK, it is those who are not and I have offered a solution on how those who are not in the UK legally could and IMO should be dealt with

So how far do we go back?

[P.K.]

Some facts from 2021:

There were 48,540 asylum applications in the UK in 2021

"Seven in 10 of the 14,734 initial decisions on applications led to asylum being granted last year – the highest rate since 1990. That figure appears to challenge Priti Vacant Patel’s claim before parliament that most people who travel to the UK in small boats are not genuine asylum seekers."

“It is important to recognise that that seven out of 10 men, women and children arriving in the UK are found to be fleeing bloodshed and persecution, the likes of which is unfolding in Ukraine, and so are granted protection.”

Lots more to this issue than folks realise:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/deportations-from-uk-at-record-low-as-asylum-applications-soar

[Eris]

Just now, P.K. said:

Some facts from 2021:

There were 48,540 asylum applications in the UK in 2021

"Seven in 10 of the 14,734 initial decisions on applications led to asylum being granted last year – the highest rate since 1990. That figure appears to challenge Priti Vacant Patel’s claim before parliament that most people who travel to the UK in small boats are not genuine asylum seekers."

“It is important to recognise that that seven out of 10 men, women and children arriving in the UK are found to be fleeing bloodshed and persecution, the likes of which is unfolding in Ukraine, and so are granted protection.”

Lots more to this issue than folks realise:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/deportations-from-uk-at-record-low-as-asylum-applications-soar

Definitely since BREXIT bonafide "asylum seekers" must apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

Ukraine is a unique case because of the meddling of Johnson.  There was no justification in the UK taking any Ukrainian refugees unless they were admissable by normal granting of visas in the usual way. As for other asylum applicants there is widespread evidence of lying by applicants in matters ranging from their age to where they have come from.  This farce must be ended and those not eligible for asylum dealt with.

 

[Eris]

11 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

So how far do we go back?

Pick a number.  I can see justification in setting 1990 as a base (Based on the dissolution of the USSR).

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, Eris said:

Definitely since BREXIT bonafide "asylum seekers" must apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

Ukraine is a unique case because of the meddling of Johnson.  There was no justification in the UK taking any Ukrainian refugees unless they were admissable by normal granting of visas in the usual way. As for other asylum applicants there is widespread evidence of lying by applicants in matters ranging from their age to where they have come from.  This farce must be ended and those not eligible for asylum dealt with.

 

That just isn’t the case, either pre or post Brexit. There’s never been a requirement to apply in the first safe place.

UK could have controlled their borders, and asylum policy, for non EU residents, we had full sovereignty to do so, whilst within the EU. UK didn’t. Brexit changed nothing.

Under Dublin there was supposed to be an ability to send back to the point of entry. The problem is, by the time they’ve got to the Northern European coast, UK couldn’t know where that was, or even where they’d come from before that, in many cases. Still don’t.

Its one of the areas where an EU joined up border and policy and dispersal, would have worked, but was refused by UK and ignored/vetoed by lots of right wing regimes in the east of Europe, who are happy, it appears, to take funds when it suits, but not shoulder responsibilities.

Of course if the EU stopped subsidising French, Italian, German, farmers there’d be plenty money to resolve matters and properly resettle. But that’s a different issue.

[Eris]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That just isn’t the case, either pre or post Brexit. There’s never been a requirement to apply in the first safe place.

UK could have controlled their borders, and asylum policy, for non EU residents, we had full sovereignty to do so, whilst within the EU. UK didn’t. Brexit changed nothing.

Under Dublin there was supposed to be an ability to send back to the point of entry. The problem is, by the time they’ve got to the Northern European coast, UK couldn’t know where that was, or even where they’d come from before that, in many cases. Still don’t.

Its one of the areas where an EU joined up border and policy and dispersal, would have worked, but was refused by UK and ignored/vetoed by lots of right wing regimes in the east of Europe, who are happy, it appears, to take funds when it suits, but not shoulder responsibilities.

Of course if the EU stopped subsidising French, Italian, German, farmers there’d be plenty money to resolve matters and properly resettle. But that’s a different issue.

I believe that you need to check your facts.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Eris said:

I believe that you need to check your facts.

What I’ve stated is a correct exposition of the law. Whatever you have been led to believe.

[Eris]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

What I’ve stated is a correct exposition of the law. Whatever you have been led to believe.

However the way that the law is implemented is an entirely different matter.  There is lies the problem.

[John Wright]

35 minutes ago, Eris said:

However the way that the law is implemented is an entirely different matter.  There is lies the problem.

Not really.

First, you come out with racist right wing Brexit claptrap, that you’ve picked up, no doubt from the Wail, or worse. It’s wrong. You don’t have the grace to admit that. So you change your grounds.

Second, Refugees, asylum seekers, etc, all know, and that’s why they don’t apply in Greece, Italy, France, Spain, if their intended destination is UK.

Third, the only way to resolve this is an EU/UK wide agreement. Everyone who arrives in EU as a refugee has to be taken to an asylum claim processing centre, wherever they’re found. Each camp has to have asylum claim processing unit from each country in the EU ( plus UK ). Anyone who doesn’t apply, or doesn’t get granted asylum, should be removed ( however that’s difficult if they’ve no documentation - you don’t know where they’re from ). Applications must be processed in 13 weeks. Failure results in default position of asylum being granted.

Fourth, there should be a common Asylum Appeals Tribunal that sits in each asylum claim processing centre.

Best place to do all this is as a member of EU and Schengen.

[Eris]

53 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not really.

First, you come out with racist right wing Brexit claptrap, that you’ve picked up, no doubt from the Wail, or worse. It’s wrong. You don’t have the grace to admit that. So you change your grounds.

Second, Refugees, asylum seekers, etc, all know, and that’s why they don’t apply in Greece, Italy, France, Spain, if their intended destination is UK.

Third, the only way to resolve this is an EU/UK wide agreement. Everyone who arrives in EU as a refugee has to be taken to an asylum claim processing centre, wherever they’re found. Each camp has to have asylum claim processing unit from each country in the EU ( plus UK ). Anyone who doesn’t apply, or doesn’t get granted asylum, should be removed ( however that’s difficult if they’ve no documentation - you don’t know where they’re from ). Applications must be processed in 13 weeks. Failure results in default position of asylum being granted.

Fourth, there should be a common Asylum Appeals Tribunal that sits in each asylum claim processing centre.

Best place to do all this is as a member of EU and Schengen.

How dare you call me racist!  Nothing could be further from the truth.

[code99]

It is also worth mentioning that many of these refugees (Syrians, Yemenis, Afghanis, Iraqis, Eritreans, etc), who are prepared to risk their lives by crossing the Channel in small boats, are fleeing persecution and desperate economic conditions in their home countries, and often these countries are tyrannical regimes that the West has been ‘propping up’ in one way or another for the sake of that worn-out virtue of pragmatism (and where principles get sacrificed on the altar of greed), but ultimately ‘we’ will have to ‘pay the piper’. E.g., whilst Western politicians of all creeds and persuasions were busy collecting donations from money-laundering kleptocrats, the Saudis were bombing Yemen with Western arms and Russians were bombing Syria. This year Russia has been trying to economically and militarily decimate Ukraine. IMHO, it is only fair that Western governments, some of whom previously turned their collective blind eye to the atrocities, should shoulder some responsibility for these crises and help out the victims. Unless of course the UK has decided to no longer follow Geneva Convention either (to which, as I recall, the UK was a key signatory). 

The principles and foundations of the EU, as it is today, were built and subsequently enshrined in various treaties over several years, e.g.: Treaty of Rome (1957), Maastricht Treaty (1992), Treaty of Lisbon (2007), etc. Brexit is a political ‘cut and run’ cult from these obligations, but one can’t reason with cult thinking - it’s a bit like talking to anti-vaxxers. Campaigning Brexiteers invented imaginary problems such as ‘being deprived of national sovereignty’, but in reality, there has never been an actual threat to UK sovereignty since WW2. When BoJo was working as a hack in Brussels he was making things up about the evils of the EU - he did this just to spice up his reports and to create controversy. His erroneous despatches about nonsense like ‘bendy cucumbers’ got the knickers of the English middle-classes into a twist. Now, the hilarity of post-Brexit Britain has been characterised by the UK Govt recent overtures aiming to resuscitate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with the goal of the UK joining a trading block of nations who are geographically located in the South Pacific region (most of these countries will buy about 0.1% of British made goods and services). But apparently, the justification for the UK abandoning the European trading block (with all its size, convenience, perks and 'privileges') was because ‘Asia is the place where the world’s future economic growth will be’. Good luck with that idea, and all of the logistical challenges and geopolitical nightmares that that will entail e.g., the tension between China and Taiwan springs to mind. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by code99

[John Wright]

50 minutes ago, Eris said:

How dare you call me racist!  Nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn’t.  But your own posts show a huge dose of xenophobia.

 

[Eris]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I didn’t.  But your own posts show a huge dose of xenophobia.

 

Xenophobia?  Absolutely not.  

[The Voice of Reason]

It’s just a tactic of  some of the Remainers.

If not to call those who voted for Brexit racists, or imply that they are without actually using the word.
 

Xenophobic “ is another one. 

It’s an ugly and tired response and shows those who use it in their true light.

That said it’s important not to give them ammunition and talk of sending people back is emotive language.

I believe that the majority of people both Remainers and people who voted for Brexit would want asylum seekers and refugees ( whatever term you want to use) to be treated with dignity.

I know I do.
 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by The Voice of Reason