UK Politics General Discussion

[Smiley]

Leaving the ECHR could begin an extremely slippery slope that would be very concerning for a number of people who are currently being targeted for political gain beyond immigrants.

You can re-write it in UK legislation without the bits that allow illegals to game the system. No-one is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Lewis232]

Processing centre in France?? They are in the same boat (pun intended). Illegal asylum seekers are only in France to get to the UK. Otherwise they'd be somewhere with better weather Send them back to the first point of entry (EU) and then distribute accordingly.

We used to do this under the Dublin Agreement but as we are no longer a member of the EU this no longer happens.

Arrive illegally - deported immediately. If that means we have to leave the EHCR then so be it. It doesn't mean we are giving up on all of it, just the bits that make no sense

Leaving aside the various legal barriers that would have to be overcome to leave the ECHR, this would have no impact as the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention would still remain in effect under international law and we would still have a legal duty to process asylum applications for those who travel to the UK to claim asylum.

 

[Dave]

To deal with illegal immigration the first part of policy should be that if you arrive in this country illegally (via dinghy, back of lorry etc) then you will NEVER be granted asylum, leave to stay or be given citizenship in any way, shape or form. Have some respect for the country you're trying to get to help you. We'll agree to take our fair share of people who have fled their country through danger to life etc, but we'll have means of processing from outside the country. Change the laws in parliament over the space of a week if necessary. It can be done, we're not beholden to Europe anymore.

If you arrive illegally and found, then you'll be given secure accommodation until you can be sent back to where you've come from. If you've forgotten where you came from and lost your passport at sea, you can stay in the secure accommodation until you remember (you might fill them up at first, but when the message gets out that Britain is not a soft touch they'll become emptier and emptier and they can be repurposed to open prisons etc for our lot).

It's a big issue that will not go away in politics until it's sorted. It needs a radical solution as if you look at some of the daily numbers of illegal arrivals it's ridiculous. The solution is to get the message out that it's not worth landing here illegally as it won't work out well for you.

There's the solution, but we've gone too soft to implement it and now people with money and influence in this country have got used to the money they're getting from housing these people in hotels so there's your other problem.

This solution has a big flaw in it.

There is no legal way to claim asylum in the UK, I would happily agree with your solution IF legal routes were also created. Fact is these poor souls are not going to be put off by the risk of being caught if the risk of dying in the channel hasn’t already put them off.

Hence why you need a processing centre in France.

Your solution isn’t a solution, it’s got nothing to do with being soft it just wouldn’t put anyone off unless there was an actual legal route to go along with it.

You can re-write it in UK legislation without the bits that allow illegals to game the system. No-one is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Others have pointed out leaving the ECHR wouldn’t solve the asylum protections you dislike, it would also breach the Good Friday agreement.

Also the politicians who want us to leave the ECHR like Farage don’t give a fig about asylum, they want to fool the population into agreeing to leave because they don’t like the rights everyday people use in their lives (right to a private life etc) as it reduces their earning potential.

 

[BarryZola]

Leaving aside the various legal barriers that would have to be overcome to leave the ECHR, this would have no impact as the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention would still remain in effect under international law and we would still have a legal duty to process asylum applications for those who travel to the UK to claim asylum.

Well, Israel, Russia and China are members of the United Nations, so it shows how much countries actually have to follow the things put in place there. Let's let other nations do as they please and watch our own country sink into the toilet just to stay within guidelines that others don't bother with.

We need to grow a pair, declare a national emergency or whatever and then just do what needs to be done for the security of our country and its citizens. Act first and answer questions about it afterwards when we've sorted the issue.

I know I seem somewhat combative but if we just continue down the road of doing nothing radical there will be a far right government and god knows what happening here in future (in my opinion).

 

[Dave]

Well, Israel, Russia and China are members of the United Nations, so it shows how much countries actually have to follow the things put in place there. Let's let other nations do as they please and watch our own country sink into the toilet just to stay within guidelines that others don't bother with.

We need to grow a pair, declare a national emergency or whatever and then just do what needs to be done for the security of our country and its citizens. Act first and answer questions about it afterwards when we've sorted the issue.

I know I seem somewhat combative but if we just continue down the road of doing nothing radical there will be a far right government and god knows what happening here in future (in my opinion).

Or we could just, you know, process the applications in France then have their biometrics on file so if they do attempt illegal crossings after their claim is rejected we know where they came from and could send them back.

France would be up for that but no-one has the balls to just do the right thing because the media won’t allow it, why? because the owners of said media and the right wing politicians don’t care about asylum claims, they want to water down human rights for the majority, particularly those that enforce higher employment standard such as a right to private and family life. Giving everyone a bogey man to fear means they will cheer losing their own rights until it’s too late to realise what happened.

 

[BarryZola]

This solution has a big flaw in it.

There is no legal way to claim asylum in the UK, I would happily agree with your solution IF legal routes were also created. Fact is these poor souls are not going to be put off by the risk of being caught if the risk of dying in the channel hasn’t already put them off.

This is my point. We should be creating a way to process people from outside the country. We have the internet and advanced technology. People could apply and be processed from almost anywhere on earth. We could do this as a single nation and have a yearly cap on people who are approved to move and settle here. Or best of all, have an international system where many nations sign up and accepted parties are distributed around the member states in fair numbers and there isn't necessarily a choice on where you end up. You'll just be guaranteed to not have your life in danger anymore and be in a safe country.

 

[Dave]

This is my point. We should be creating a way to process people from outside the country. We have the internet and advanced technology. People could apply and be processed from almost anywhere on earth. We could do this as a single nation and have a yearly cap on people who are approved to move and settle here. Or best of all, have an international system where many nations sign up and accepted parties are distributed around the member states in fair numbers and there isn't necessarily a choice on where you end up. You'll just be guaranteed to not have your life in danger anymore and be in a safe country.

The same people who are shouting about the boats are the same people who would scream blue murder if a processing centre was set up in France. Won’t happen.

 

[BarryZola]

Or we could just, you know, process the applications in France then have their biometrics on file so if they do attempt illegal crossings after their claim is rejected we know where they came from and could send them back.

France would be up for that but no-one has the balls to just do the right thing because the media won’t allow it, why? because the owners of said media and the right wing politicians don’t care about asylum claims, they want to water down human rights for the majority, particularly those that enforce higher employment standard such as a right to private and family life. Giving everyone a bogey man to fear means they will cheer losing their own rights until it’s too late to realise what happened.

I wouldn't be against that at all. France wouldn't want it though as they know half of them would stay in France. Much better to let them through and turn up on boats in England for them.

 

[BarryZola]

Delete please - Not sure what I did here

 

[Smiley]

France would be up for that but no-one has the balls to just do the right thing because the media won’t allow it,

And that's what'll let Farage in. I don't disagree with some of Reform, but as a PM it would only be slightly better than Trump.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my view entering a country illegally is grounds for immediate deportation. You are not fleeing persecution/war, etc if you arrived from France. You are picking and choosing which country to claim asylum in. I'd like to live in Mayfair, but I can't just rock up and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

As for "UN's 1951 Refugee Convention ", the clue is in the number. 74 years ago women retired at 60 and people were still being killed in coal mines. Which of those ideas should we keep.....?

 

[Lewis232]

Well, Israel, Russia and China are members of the United Nations, so it shows how much countries actually have to follow the things put in place there. Let's let other nations do as they please and watch our own country sink into the toilet just to stay within guidelines that others don't bother with.

We need to grow a pair, declare a national emergency or whatever and then just do what needs to be done for the security of our country and its citizens. Act first and answer questions about it afterwards when we've sorted the issue.

I know I seem somewhat combative but if we just continue down the road of doing nothing radical there will be a far right government and god knows what happening here in future (in my opinion).

What does this National emergency and not following UN rules entail though? You can't send them back to their country of origin or France as they wouldn't be accepted as they are now in the UK and our problem to deal with so what do you do? The only real option is to process their asylum application and then they can be deported if it is deemed their country of origin is safe for them to return to. The only solutions I can see are processing applications faster or allowing people to claim asylum from abroad to make illegal passage by boat less attractive.

 

[BarryZola]

What does this National emergency and not following UN rules entail though? You can't send them back to their country of origin or France as they wouldn't be accepted as they are now in the UK and our problem to deal with so what do you do? The only real option is to process their asylum application and then they can be deported if it is deemed their country of origin is safe for them to return to. The only solutions I can see are processing applications faster or allowing people to claim asylum from abroad to make illegal passage by boat less attractive.

Immediate ban from applying for asylum (ever) if they come here illegally by boat or whatever method. Slow down adding numbers to the backlog that we already have by having that deterrent when the message finally gets through that we're not going to be a soft touch anymore. No more sitting around for years waiting for decisions and then appealing. There won't be an application at all for those people. The idea is to stop people entering in future in an illegal manner. We have the backlog problem and you're absolutely right that we now need to work through that and process people fairly. I have absolutely no issue with us taking a fair share of genuine needy people.

 

[Lewis232]

So you've banned them from claiming asylum, now what do you do with them? Keep them in a UK detention centre forever at taxpayers expense? You can't just deport them if the country you're trying to deport them to does not agree to take them.

 

[BarryZola]

I suppose so, yes. Until they get bored and decide they've had enough of living in very basic conditions with no luxuries or any chance of a decent life and decide it's time to go somewhere else. The point is, the next 100,000 similar people wouldn't bother trying it on.