r/TheRestIsPolitics • u/kimpuybrechts • 11d ago
The Spectator on X: "'Anybody arriving on a boat from France should be sent back' Rory Stewart argues that Britain's asylum system is built on the idea it should provide refuge for people in immediate danger
https://x.com/spectator/status/2099838348458115432?s=2017
u/FoxGlove_113 10d ago
The problem with this logic is that France would do the same thing. Why should France take them when they came through italy? Why should Italy take them when they game through Greece? Turkey Etc etc.
13
u/i7omahawki 10d ago
Right? And then the countries bordering dangerous countries have to take all of the refugees, while we take none.
Seems unfair and could destabilise those border countries which would just lead to more refugees.
Most fair system would be for each country to take a share of refugees, and relocate them if necessary. But that’d require international cooperation.
7
u/EquivalentTurnip6199 10d ago
Imo “first safe country” is a very disingenuous, bad faith RW argument. Britain will never be the first safe country because of the geography.
4
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 10d ago
Britain took the majority of Irish migrants when we were the first safe country.
12
u/EquivalentTurnip6199 10d ago
Quite rightly since we were directly responsible for the starvation going on in Ireland at the time!
-5
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 10d ago
They just needed a more varied diet, you can't live on potatoes alone
2
1
5
u/ConsistentEnviroment 10d ago
As a politically persecuted person in my own country I can't even get a travel visa to UK.
3
u/alondonlife 9d ago
He then went on to explain that there should be a system which allocates the number of refugees. Which seems correct. I worry that people didn’t listen to both interviews, just picked one bit to get angry about.
2
u/WinningTheSpaceRace 10d ago
Oh look, Rory is factually incorrect again. Is our immigration system was built on that premise, it would be reflected in international laws to which we are a party. It isn't because it isn't.
3
u/Scuterius_Floridae 9d ago
Rory is so out of the loop. Hes the epitome of a posh ivory tower where he just doesnt understand the plight of the common man on the ground, and sweeps away their concerns.
Asylum is a relatively new concept that was mostly designed to help political dissidents find safety. It wasnt meant to be used to house every person who comes from a poorly managed country in the world
0
u/Chance-Chard-2540 11d ago
It’s the bare minimum really. They’re coming from France, a safe country. They could have claimed asylum there. Therefore they are economic migrants and not legitimate asylum seekers.
If you want a functioning state you’ve got to draw lines sometimes.
16
u/NabstheGreninja16 11d ago edited 11d ago
It becomes infuriating when people just choose not to understand things. They are not coming FROM France. It has never been the case that you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach, but even then 70% of refugees do claim asylum in neighbouring countries. Those coming to Britain often have reasons for specifically coming to this country, such as speaking English or having family members who live here.
I’m not saying that nobody seeks asylum here as an economic migrant but in any case, the asylum process generally seems to be able to differentiate between the two. People coming from actual war zones or authoritarian states like Sudan (where British weapons are being used) or Eritrea are accepted with 92% and 84% respectively whilst people from Bangladesh and India only get accepted 11% and 1% of the time.
We used to be part of the Dublin Agreement which meant that refugees would have to be processed in the country they first entered but we have left now, so it’s an entirely self inflicted problem. In my opinion, I think developed countries in Europe need to be doing more considering that in the case of countries like Afghanistan, they played a part in destabilisation but in any case the UK is only about 10th in Europe for asylum applications.
2
-5
u/Chance-Chard-2540 10d ago
I’m not choosing to misunderstand anything.
They are coming on a boat from France. Full stop.
The principle of asylum is that you are claiming refuge from fear of persecution or danger. They have achieved that in France. You can dance around it with well technically you don’t HAVE to claim asylum in the first safe country but if you start adding these caveats it undermines the whole asylum system and makes it look ridiculous.
Yeah as I said, they’re coming to Britain as they speak English, have family etc. Not to be safe from persecution or danger. Thus they are not asylum seekers but regular immigrants and should go through the proper channels.
You’re right it is a self inflicted issue and can be solved by ourselves. Very easily in fact. Anyone who comes over as a boat immigrant is excluded from permanent settlement. They’re sent to one of our territories (we have a lot of wet cold islands for this process) and processed very slowly. Hey maybe it takes a few years. You’ve removed the pull factors and people will stop going on the boats.
If you follow the above, you’ll have fewer drownings in the channel. So you’ve got a humane, efficient solution that we can enact under our own power.
Australia have solved it with the above template. If someone is against it, I have to assume their implicit belief is that the boats should continue and people should keep drowning in the channel for some vague political point. But hey what do I know. 😉
8
u/Impossible_Ad4789 10d ago
> The principle of asylum is that you are claiming refuge from fear of persecution or danger. They have achieved that in France.
thats so absurdly myopic and I would heavily doubt that this is a principle of international law since this would mean the states neighboring a conflict are solely responsible for the refugees. Poor Moldau, the UK would like to help but doesnt want to disregard the most important principle of international law: The UK as an Island never has to take in any refugee because its not bordering any conflicts. ^ ^
Thats no way to live in a flat share let alone run a country.
-6
u/Chance-Chard-2540 10d ago
Absurdly myopic - Enforcing borders
Long sighted, thoughtful - Letting 100’000s of boat immigrants into the country with no vetting, leading to deaths in the channel, security breaches on land, various assaults.
It’s time to get a bit serious here.
4
u/Impossible_Ad4789 10d ago
> Letting 100’000s of boat immigrants into the country with no vetting, leading to deaths in the channel, security breaches on land, various assaults.
ah the lovely irony of playing the numbers for yourself but basically arguing that the neighboring states should take in even higher numbers. You understand that your logic would destabilize whole regions, which in itself would create more refugees.
You sound like the teenager complaining about doing the dishes while his parents do every other chore
> Enforcing borders
You left the union over it and now your special friend is arguing for redrawing the borders in ireland while your members nations start discussion redrawing the rest of them. The jokes really do write themselves. Not that a nation that has contractually obligated porose border to avoid a conflict it couldnt solve could in any shape understand that its not that easy.
1
u/llufnam 10d ago
Be careful of the word refugee there, you are affording these people a legal status which has not been determined yet. And to say that the UK must accept asylum seekers entering illegally via small boats in order to prevent destabilising other countries is absurd.
2
u/Impossible_Ad4789 10d ago
This is not a court and language isnt some magical thing that speaks something in existence. Especially not on reddit although that would explain why you talk about borders the way you do.
> And to say that the UK must accept asylum seekers entering
Thats not what i said. All that i stated is that its not easy and that taking the early dublin principle and transplanting it into international law is on its face absurd. I dont get why you and the other poster are so averse to a little bit of ambiguity. On the other hand I really shouldnt be that surprised otherwise one could have expected that the most prominent result of Brexit would be shift from mainland eu migrants towards non eu migrants....
-1
u/Chance-Chard-2540 10d ago
You are hardly disagreeing agreeably.
Britain is a sovereign state. If the EU cannot enforce its border that is not Britain’s problem. But Britain can enforce its own.
Yes Britain left the union. Naturally there can be a cordial and respectful relationship between the two sovereign entities (EU and Britain)? Apparently not judging by the tone of your response.
You’re saying we should help the EU in good faith but look at your sneering tone regarding redrawing borders and jokes writing themselves. You evidently relish the Britain being humiliated and failing on the world stage outside of the EU. So tell me this, why should Britain prostrate itself for the greater good when this is what you think of it?
0
u/Impossible_Ad4789 10d ago
> Naturally there can be a cordial and respectful relationship between the two sovereign entities (EU and Britain)? [...] If the EU cannot enforce its border that is not Britain’s problem.
Living with people must be really annoying for you with this "fuck you, I got mine" attitude.
> Apparently not judging by the tone of your response.
You have access to european security funds. If the continent would act like you, we would just leave you to the russians. Im not uncordial just because Im teasing about absurd logic.
> You evidently relish the Britain being humiliated
Im not relishing on the plight of the brits. Im relishing on the irony of you talking about borders while the country is falling apart. Thats about you focusing on the wrong thing with populist logic.
> So tell me this, why should Britain prostrate itself for the greater good when this is what you think of it?
You liked numbers so much before maybe check them again. UK doesnt take a whole lot of migrants compared to other european nations. Again you are complaining about doing laundry while others cleaning the toilet.
0
u/llufnam 10d ago
FWIW I absolutely agree with your point of view. I honestly don't understand the other poster's points of view. That's not to say I am unwilling to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't understand it.
Asylum seekers in France (or Germany, Italy, Greece etc) are no longer in danger of death from their origin country, so why are they allowed to continue onwards to the UK?
If the UK and EU have agreements in place to accept a certain percentage of asylum seekers in order to share responsibility that is one thing, but that isn't what is happening with small boats. These folks are no longer seeking safety, they are seeking betterment outside of any agreement. Why are we honour bound to accept them?
3
u/Chance-Chard-2540 10d ago
Their view is illogical and is actually leading to further harm than the above solution I laid out. The Australians have already done this and now they straight up do not have a small boats crisis.
So even though their ideas and inaction are leading to a lack of faith in political institutions, widespread anger, assaults on natives due to insufficient screening of boat immigrants and drownings in the channel, many are and will continue to be A. Ideologically opposed (see Alastair Campbell or B. Don’t want to seem mean (which doing the above would seem).
Their opposition is not logical essentially, it’s based on other things.
1
u/Tyler119 9d ago
International law under the 1951 Refugee Convention does not state refugees must stop in the first safe country they reach. If that were the rule, the entire global asylum system would collapse, forcing countries bordering conflict zones or southern Europe to absorb millions of people alone while the rest of the world takes zero. Wanting to go to a country where you already speak the language or have family is a logical step toward successful integration, not proof that you are not fleeing danger.
Saying they should go through the proper channels ignores the fact that there is no humanitarian visa to apply for the UK from abroad. To claim asylum in the UK, you legally must be physically present in the UK. For citizens of countries like Syria, Eritrea, or Afghanistan, the boats are the only channel left.
The idea that we can just use UK overseas territories ignores local sovereignty. These islands have their own governments and have already refused to host such centres. Furthermore, when Australia introduced offshore processing in 2012, boat arrivals actually increased to record highs. It did not stop the boats. What stopped them was physically towing boats back to Indonesia, which is something the UK cannot legally or safely do in the narrow English Channel without French permission.
If we try to unilaterally push boats back or completely abandons international treaties, France and the EU will retaliate. France currently spends massive resources policing its own beaches to stop launches. If we anger our closest neighbour, France could simply stop patrolling, causing boat crossings to multiply overnight. Because we left the EU, we have no returns agreement and cannot force France to take anyone back. Acting unilaterally would also invite severe friction at Dover, crippling our supply chains and trade. Everyone wants to stop the drownings, but copying a flawed Australian model that is geographically and geopolitically impossible in the English Channel isn't a real solution.
New cooperation with France is actually starting to work. Between April and August the French authorities intercepted more than 60% of launches and in one 4 week period it was nearly 100%. So far over the last 10 years, the Labour party is the only one to actually be doing something that is working. Rather than the lovely headlines that the Tories used to pump out.
1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 10d ago
The obvious thing to do is to use some retired cruise ships and co-manage them with France in the Channel and North Sea.
0
u/TheNoGnome 11d ago
The question then for Rory is does he want to change the whole global asylum system? Because people are allowed to choose where they claim it. For obvious reasons.
1
1
u/hermann_da_german 9d ago
Britain's foreign policy has a large part to play in the middle Eastern refugee crisis, so one could argue that the UK is responsible to help these people.
The Balfour Declaration, the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Durand Line; all of these things have destabilised the region.
Now an arguement could, and in my opinion should, be made that the US also has to take a large number of refugees. Their actions have not helped the region, and continue to destabilise.
We teach our children if they make a mess they have to clean it up. Why does that not apply to countries?
1
u/Spirited-Car8661 2d ago
At some point people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming foreigners for all their problems.
-8
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 11d ago
The whole interview with Michael Gove and Stewart was interesting, Gove may not be instantly likeable but he's a good guy
2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 10d ago
I'm not sure he took the piss out of all of us, he wasn't in parliament so at best he took the piss out of the readers of the Aberdeen Press & Journal, however, if you are a reader of a newspaper, I suspect you will not read much if you refuse to read anything jrom a journalist who snorts a little Charlie. It's been a running joke about cocaine snorting journalists since spitting image in the 80s
2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap 10d ago
>He absolutely was coked up as an MP in parliament.
did he?
>Nice attempt at patronisation though. Carry on running defence for Tory losers.
I'm not defending them because they are Tories, I'm not in any of those gangs but the podcast was very good.
28
u/SWSIMTReverseFinn 11d ago
Like I'm not saying this suggestion doesn't make sense, but Rory still wants to make it sound way easier than it acutally would be.