|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 28, 2022 21:52:47 GMT
No he would almost certainly not. You've got to get an international court to hear the case and France with its UN veto can block a lot of them Which international court did you have in mind? Steve, you're an expert on the laws of the sea? Who knew. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 21:57:27 GMT
No he would almost certainly not. You've got to get an international court to hear the case and France with its UN veto can block a lot of them Which international court did you have in mind? Steve, you're an expert on the laws of the sea? Who knew. Never claimed I was but I'll certainly claim you're no expert on real politik or international law |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 28, 2022 22:06:08 GMT
Steve, you're an expert on the laws of the sea? Who knew. Never claimed I was but I'll certainly claim you're no expert on real politik or international law How very dare you. International law, meh. I was a famous barrack room lawyer. I didn't win many cases but as many people would if they could be found confirm, I had a bloody good laugh trying. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 30, 2022 10:45:13 GMT
And if the French block his path, what's he going to do, call up his own Navy? Actually it's more like the French would arrest him and confiscate his boat but the point is still the same, you can't actually force the French to accept them back. I don't like it, you won't like it but it's best to deal with reality than deny it. LOL, honestly, I'm almost embarrassed to say this, again. Did you miss this bit... ...if a vessel rescues people at sea, it is entirely the captains decision where he lands them, the captains decision is final. He said this is the internationally recognised law of the sea and it would be against international law for the French government to refuse permission for such a vessel to enter a French port.
If the French did refuse access, then it would be a matter for international courts/UN. These migrants are not French. The captain may be right if they were. But I don't know why there is this idea that France should take these people "back". They didn't start their journey in France. France has no legal responsibility for them and even if you say they are illegally on French soil, they have also been illegal on other soils. The international law says you cannot detain an asylum seekers. That is kidnap or illegal detainment. I don't know why the UK doesn't set up legal processing in France...that "safe route" that would prevent the crossings. I suspect the government doesn't want to make life easier for the migrants and that instead of wringing their hands at the deaths of those who drown, merely use that "humanitarian" excuse as another reason to stop the arrivals. Now the UK can make its own rules about who gets to stay in an asylum application, why not create safe routes for entry, make really tight rules for entry, and return failures to their original starting point? It seems that the Home Office is shouting while what is needed is quiet thinking and instead of divisive splashy headlines, some adjustment of the conditions of acceptance as refugees. The UK has created its points system for legal immigration. Why not for asylum seekers? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 30, 2022 10:53:24 GMT
LOL, honestly, I'm almost embarrassed to say this, again. Did you miss this bit... ...if a vessel rescues people at sea, it is entirely the captains decision where he lands them, the captains decision is final. He said this is the internationally recognised law of the sea and it would be against international law for the French government to refuse permission for such a vessel to enter a French port.
If the French did refuse access, then it would be a matter for international courts/UN. These migrants are not French. The captain may be right if they were. But I don't know why there is this idea that France should take these people "back". They didn't start their journey in France. France has no legal responsibility for them and even if you say they are illegally on French soil, they have also been illegal on other soils. The international law says you cannot detain an asylum seekers. That is kidnap or illegal detainment. I don't know why the UK doesn't set up legal processing in France...that "safe route" that would prevent the crossings. I suspect the government doesn't want to make life easier for the migrants and that instead of wringing their hands at the deaths of those who drown, merely use that "humanitarian" excuse as another reason to stop the arrivals. Now the UK can make its own rules about who gets to stay in an asylum application, why not create safe routes for entry, make really tight rules for entry, and return failures to their original starting point? It seems that the Home Office is shouting while what is needed is quiet thinking and instead of divisive splashy headlines, some adjustment of the conditions of acceptance as refugees. The UK has created its points system for legal immigration. Why not for asylum seekers? It's not even 11 o'clock yet you have made the most illogical post of today, yesterday and 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 30, 2022 11:46:03 GMT
Morally the EU and/or France should take them back. France says 'not our problem because they came through Germany' but doesn't extend that principle to the obvious 'not UK's problem because they came through France' Germany says not their problem because they didn't apply for asylum within their time limit.
But whatever the moral position, the real politik is we cannot force France or the EU to take them back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 30, 2022 17:28:34 GMT
LOL, honestly, I'm almost embarrassed to say this, again. Did you miss this bit... ...if a vessel rescues people at sea, it is entirely the captains decision where he lands them, the captains decision is final. He said this is the internationally recognised law of the sea and it would be against international law for the French government to refuse permission for such a vessel to enter a French port.
If the French did refuse access, then it would be a matter for international courts/UN. These migrants are not French. The captain may be right if they were. But I don't know why there is this idea that France should take these people "back". They didn't start their journey in France. France has no legal responsibility for them and even if you say they are illegally on French soil, they have also been illegal on other soils. The international law says you cannot detain an asylum seekers. That is kidnap or illegal detainment. I don't know why the UK doesn't set up legal processing in France...that "safe route" that would prevent the crossings. I suspect the government doesn't want to make life easier for the migrants and that instead of wringing their hands at the deaths of those who drown, merely use that "humanitarian" excuse as another reason to stop the arrivals. Now the UK can make its own rules about who gets to stay in an asylum application, why not create safe routes for entry, make really tight rules for entry, and return failures to their original starting point? It seems that the Home Office is shouting while what is needed is quiet thinking and instead of divisive splashy headlines, some adjustment of the conditions of acceptance as refugees. The UK has created its points system for legal immigration. Why not for asylum seekers? I think you missunderstand. If the captain of a vessel took people he rescued on the high seas to a French port the fact that they're illegals/migrants/asylum seekers etc, is completely irrelevant. Their 'political' status is irrelevant. As far as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is concerned the captain of a vessel who recues people at sea can land them at any 'safe' port he chooses. It is entirely the captains decision and his decision is final. That's the law. If the French refused him access to a French port then I imagine a higher court, or the UN would become involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 30, 2022 21:36:36 GMT
How come the Italians prosecuted those who took rescued migrants to their ports then?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 30, 2022 22:05:54 GMT
LOL, honestly, I'm almost embarrassed to say this, again. Did you miss this bit... ...if a vessel rescues people at sea, it is entirely the captains decision where he lands them, the captains decision is final. He said this is the internationally recognised law of the sea and it would be against international law for the French government to refuse permission for such a vessel to enter a French port.
If the French did refuse access, then it would be a matter for international courts/UN. These migrants are not French. The captain may be right if they were. But I don't know why there is this idea that France should take these people "back". They didn't start their journey in France. France has no legal responsibility for them and even if you say they are illegally on French soil, they have also been illegal on other soils. The international law says you cannot detain an asylum seekers. That is kidnap or illegal detainment. I don't know why the UK doesn't set up legal processing in France...that "safe route" that would prevent the crossings. I suspect the government doesn't want to make life easier for the migrants and that instead of wringing their hands at the deaths of those who drown, merely use that "humanitarian" excuse as another reason to stop the arrivals. Now the UK can make its own rules about who gets to stay in an asylum application, why not create safe routes for entry, make really tight rules for entry, and return failures to their original starting point? It seems that the Home Office is shouting while what is needed is quiet thinking and instead of divisive splashy headlines, some adjustment of the conditions of acceptance as refugees. The UK has created its points system for legal immigration. Why not for asylum seekers? Of course the counter arguments to your suggestion that we, a country outside the EU, go to the EU and ask permission to set up a United Kingdom Government Office dedicated to processing claims from persons in France seeking asylum in Britain are 1) what the hell is so diabolical about life in France that makes people in B that country fear the government there so much they demand the right to asylum from that country, its government and state authorities 2) why should we, a sovereign state with no political connection to France, offer any means whatsoever for persons who have fled to France as a result of some fear of persecution in a country outside its borders to continue their flight. France is a country that takes pride in accepting persons in fear of persecution. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 31, 2022 5:27:04 GMT
How come the Italians prosecuted those who took rescued migrants to their ports then? According to this article the Italian state has failed in its bid to successfully prosecute anyone, and there is one outstanding case which apparently turns on the allegation that the crew was somehow conspiring with people smugglers. The article is an 'opinion piece', so I suppose it should be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 31, 2022 7:43:10 GMT
How come the Italians prosecuted those who took rescued migrants to their ports then? If you are talking about Pia Klemp left wing human rights activist and captain of the Iuventa, then the Italians say they have evidence from seized phones and computers that she and others on the Iuventa colluded with people smugglers to get migrants, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants call them what you will, from Libya to Europe, which is why the Italians are taking legal action against her. www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/15/captain-of-migrant-rescue-ship-says-italy-criminalising-solidarity |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 31, 2022 10:43:35 GMT
These migrants are not French. The captain may be right if they were. But I don't know why there is this idea that France should take these people "back". They didn't start their journey in France. France has no legal responsibility for them and even if you say they are illegally on French soil, they have also been illegal on other soils. The international law says you cannot detain an asylum seekers. That is kidnap or illegal detainment. I don't know why the UK doesn't set up legal processing in France...that "safe route" that would prevent the crossings. I suspect the government doesn't want to make life easier for the migrants and that instead of wringing their hands at the deaths of those who drown, merely use that "humanitarian" excuse as another reason to stop the arrivals. Now the UK can make its own rules about who gets to stay in an asylum application, why not create safe routes for entry, make really tight rules for entry, and return failures to their original starting point? It seems that the Home Office is shouting while what is needed is quiet thinking and instead of divisive splashy headlines, some adjustment of the conditions of acceptance as refugees. The UK has created its points system for legal immigration. Why not for asylum seekers? Of course the counter arguments to your suggestion that we, a country outside the EU, go to the EU and ask permission to set up a United Kingdom Government Office dedicated to processing claims from persons in France seeking asylum in Britain are 1) what the hell is so diabolical about life in France that makes people in B that country fear the government there so much they demand the right to asylum from that country, its government and state authorities 2) why should we, a sovereign state with no political connection to France, offer any means whatsoever for persons who have fled to France as a result of some fear of persecution in a country outside its borders to continue their flight. France is a country that takes pride in accepting persons in fear of persecution. They didn't flee to France. The ones who did seek asylum there. They fled to the UK, or Sweden, or Germany or Austria. That is their human right, to go where they feel, for whatever reason, they want to go. They aren't parcels that got sent to the wrong address. Why aren't you asking why they shouldn't be taken back to Germany or somewhere else they travelled through? They didn't start in France or Germany. I don't know whether this constant wail about France is some ancient British antagonism or a misunderstanding. The UK had such an agreement with France which was scrapped by Brexit. The EU also has arrangements within it to deal with migrants who arrive to claim asylum by attempting to fairly distribute the numbers, WITH THEIR ASSENT. You can't just move people around against their will...that is either kidnap or trafficking. Any arrangement by the UK to return asylum seekers will now have to be done as a private arrangement nation to nation. And I have a hunch no one will help the UK. They have enough such problems of their own. And why should they? The EU doesn't have anything to do with third country migration issues. Ironically pre Brexit the UK had more control over its borders in this issue than it now does. Which brings us back to my first post in this thread. A suggestion to reach some agreement with France. But I don't hold out much hope. Finally another irony is that the UK has thousands of jobs available yet turns away migrants and pays for the keep they could be earning for themselves. Barmy. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 31, 2022 11:18:53 GMT
Of course the counter arguments to your suggestion that we, a country outside the EU, go to the EU and ask permission to set up a United Kingdom Government Office dedicated to processing claims from persons in France seeking asylum in Britain are 1) what the hell is so diabolical about life in France that makes people in B that country fear the government there so much they demand the right to asylum from that country, its government and state authorities 2) why should we, a sovereign state with no political connection to France, offer any means whatsoever for persons who have fled to France as a result of some fear of persecution in a country outside its borders to continue their flight. France is a country that takes pride in accepting persons in fear of persecution. They didn't flee to France. The ones who did seek asylum there. They fled to the UK, or Sweden, or Germany or Austria. That is their human right, to go where they feel, for whatever reason, they want to go. They aren't parcels that got sent to the wrong address. Why aren't you asking why they shouldn't be taken back to Germany or somewhere else they travelled through? They didn't start in France or Germany. I don't know whether this constant wail about France is some ancient British antagonism or a misunderstanding. The UK had such an agreement with France which was scrapped by Brexit. The EU also has arrangements within it to deal with migrants who arrive to claim asylum by attempting to fairly distribute the numbers, WITH THEIR ASSENT. You can't just move people around against their will...that is either kidnap or trafficking. Any arrangement by the UK to return asylum seekers will now have to be done as a private arrangement nation to nation. And I have a hunch no one will help the UK. They have enough such problems of their own. And why should they? The EU doesn't have anything to do with third country migration issues. Ironically pre Brexit the UK had more control over its borders in this issue than it now does. Which brings us back to my first post in this thread. A suggestion to reach some agreement with France. But I don't hold out much hope. Finally another irony is that the UK has thousands of jobs available yet turns away migrants and pays for the keep they could be earning for themselves. Barmy. The biggest group poor downtrodden refugees crossing the channel at the moment are Albanians. The EU states of Germany and Sweden have not only banned asylum claims from Albanians and Macedonians, but have been actively deporting them since 2020. Yet outraged lefties including human rights lawyers in this country insist they're refugees and use legislation from the 1950's to stop the government deporting them. Which is why the law must be changed, and I believe it is being changed. Better late than never. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 11:44:34 GMT
How come the Italians prosecuted those who took rescued migrants to their ports then? According to this article the Italian state has failed in its bid to successfully prosecute anyone, and there is one outstanding case which apparently turns on the allegation that the crew was somehow conspiring with people smugglers. The article is an 'opinion piece', so I suppose it should be treated as such.
The Luventa case is ongoing and very real and proves my point that we cannot force France to do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 31, 2022 12:07:18 GMT
They didn't flee to France. The ones who did seek asylum there. They fled to the UK, or Sweden, or Germany or Austria. That is their human right, to go where they feel, for whatever reason, they want to go. They aren't parcels that got sent to the wrong address. Why aren't you asking why they shouldn't be taken back to Germany or somewhere else they travelled through? They didn't start in France or Germany. I don't know whether this constant wail about France is some ancient British antagonism or a misunderstanding. The UK had such an agreement with France which was scrapped by Brexit. The EU also has arrangements within it to deal with migrants who arrive to claim asylum by attempting to fairly distribute the numbers, WITH THEIR ASSENT. You can't just move people around against their will...that is either kidnap or trafficking. Any arrangement by the UK to return asylum seekers will now have to be done as a private arrangement nation to nation. And I have a hunch no one will help the UK. They have enough such problems of their own. And why should they? The EU doesn't have anything to do with third country migration issues. Ironically pre Brexit the UK had more control over its borders in this issue than it now does. Which brings us back to my first post in this thread. A suggestion to reach some agreement with France. But I don't hold out much hope. Finally another irony is that the UK has thousands of jobs available yet turns away migrants and pays for the keep they could be earning for themselves. Barmy. The biggest group poor downtrodden refugees crossing the channel at the moment are Albanians. The EU states of Germany and Sweden have not only banned asylum claims from Albanians and Macedonians, but have been actively deporting them since 2020. Yet outraged lefties including human rights lawyers in this country insist they're refugees and use legislation from the 1950's to stop the government deporting them. Which is why the law must be changed, and I believe it is being changed. Better late than never. The issue I wrote to is the constant squealing about sending migrants back to France. If the majority of migrants are Albanians, send them back to Albania! France has nothing to do with this. |
|
