|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 10:25:17 GMT
This appears to be another forum first - dappy is lost for words.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 10:41:16 GMT
What words would you like me to use, Dan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 11:01:47 GMT
What words would you like me to use, Dan? Any that support your statement that 'I could explain the technicalities of why your [Steppenwolf's] scheme wouldn't work' |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 11:35:47 GMT
Oh gosh, are you still taking that seriously.
Ok then.
Firstly of course there is no such thing as "England" in an international context, we had an act of union a few years back and became the UK.
Secondly it is completely wrong that airside at airports is not the UK soil. The UK retains full legal jurisdiction over those areas - so for example you can't murder someone "airside" and then claim its "international land" not "UK" so UK law doesn't apply.
There are minor different immigration requirements in UK law relating to designated "airside" areas, such that for example passengers who would normally require a visa to enter the UK do not need one if they are simply transitting through say Heathrow.
Airlines face heavy fines (so do ferry companies) if people arrive in UK without valid passports and visas so it really doesn't happen. People with appropriate visas do however still claim asylum fairly regularly at Heathrow. I believe until fairly recently it was the most common port for claiming asylum. That may have changed now.
It is impossible to simply "return" people to where they come from without that country agreeing.
So basically Steppenwolf's little scheme fails on just about every single count. An impressive effort!! By the way does it not occur to Steppenwolf and his ilk that far cleverer and more informed people than him working for the Government will have thought up all these little schemes and far more and realised they simply don't work.
I did enjoy his assertion that "many millions" of people would apply for UK asylum if only they could do so in Calais rather than Dover. Grasshoppperesque in its sheer nonsensicality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 6, 2024 11:47:53 GMT
Dappy (Who else) don't talk bloody rubbish. The acts of union 1707 and 1800 did not dissolve the constituent countries that make up Great Briton and The United Kingdom, pillock.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 11:59:21 GMT
Dappy (Who else) don't talk bloody rubbish. The acts of union 1707 and 1800 did not dissolve the constituent countries that make up Great Briton and The United Kingdom, pillock.
In an international law context there is no such thing as "England" (or "Great Briton", come to that). Our international commitments, including UN membership, are all as the United Kingdom. Pillock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 12:10:17 GMT
I'd have thought it quite a simple matter for the far cleverer and more informed people who work for the government (so dappy tells us) to come up with a formula to designate a small corner of England (or the UK) as an extra-legal territory in which the full panoply of the legal system including human rights do not apply. There are many such corners already: military bases, research laboratories, nuclear facilities etc - so the principle is not a new one.
One such corner could be created to accommodate illegal migrants until such time as they can be returned to their point of origin or some other third-country destination.
It's unclear why dappy is being so über-literal about this or why he's trying to make it all sound too hard so let's not do anything.
As for the number of clients that an open asylum screening facility in France might attract, the real answer is that nobody knows. It could be millions as suggested earlier or no more than presently travel to the UK and make a claim there. The prudent approach in all such cases is to hope for the best but plan for the worst, in other words plan for millions. There seems little doubt in my mind anyway that the numbers will be very much larger than the present levels of 100,000 or so a year. At least unless and until the UK modifies its present highly generous approach to adjudicating asylum claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 12:14:49 GMT
Lets make it several billion just in case Dan.
But if it would reassure you, include in the treaty with France a cap of 100,000 applicants per year in total with a proviso that if that figure were reached the office closes until the following year and any people arriving by irregular means from France after that time can be returned by UK to France, Problem solved?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 12:27:05 GMT
Lets make it several billion just in case Dan. But if it would reassure you, include in the treaty with France a cap of 100,000 applicants per year in total with a proviso that if that figure were reached the office closes until the following year and any people arriving by irregular means from France after that time can be returned by UK to France, Problem solved? I can't see the French falling for that one. What's in it for them?
It seems incontrovertible that a UK asylum reception centre anywhere on the continent would act as a beacon to the world (to use Jack Straw's immortal phrase about the Human Rights Act) and it would be swamped (to use Margaret Thacher's notorious phrase) by hopeful supplicants.
But there's nothing wrong with the UK putting an annual cap on the number of asylum applicants it accepts. Why can't it do that now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 6, 2024 12:39:18 GMT
Somewhere in the region of ~ 5000 would be ample.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 12:53:44 GMT
Lets make it several billion just in case Dan. But if it would reassure you, include in the treaty with France a cap of 100,000 applicants per year in total with a proviso that if that figure were reached the office closes until the following year and any people arriving by irregular means from France after that time can be returned by UK to France, Problem solved? I can't see the French falling for that one. What's in it for them?
It seems incontrovertible that a UK asylum reception centre anywhere on the continent would act as a beacon to the world (to use Jack Straw's immortal phrase about the Human Rights Act) and it would be swamped (to use Margaret Thacher's notorious phrase) by hopeful supplicants.
But there's nothing wrong with the UK putting an annual cap on the number of asylum applicants it accepts. Why can't it do that now?
The situation at Calais is an issue for France too, Dan. Far better for them to have it controlled. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 12:59:51 GMT
Having the situation controlled and contained in the Pas de Calais area suits the French very well, merçi bien.
But that asylum cap, how about it? Why not now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 6, 2024 13:02:20 GMT
I can't see the French falling for that one. What's in it for them?
It seems incontrovertible that a UK asylum reception centre anywhere on the continent would act as a beacon to the world (to use Jack Straw's immortal phrase about the Human Rights Act) and it would be swamped (to use Margaret Thacher's notorious phrase) by hopeful supplicants.
But there's nothing wrong with the UK putting an annual cap on the number of asylum applicants it accepts. Why can't it do that now?
The situation at Calais is an issue for France too, Dan. Far better for them to have it controlled. The situation in Calais would be made worse - unless, that is, you intend to allow the huge numbers drawn into Europe into the UK? Is that the general idea, Dappy? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 13:05:55 GMT
We seem to be in the fantasy world that loads of people who have travelled across hostile land and sea to reach Europe would love to come to the UK but don’t because of the channel. What is the evidence for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 13:09:53 GMT
It would be prudent to err on the side of caution in this particular instance, don't you think? What do you see as the benefit of not doing so?
And again, that asylum cap you brought up, why not introduce one now?
|
|
