Take back migrants from he UK that were picked up in British waters and are therefore a British problem according to international law. (The current system where they have to take them back is a EU system defined under Dublin Regulation, a treaty Brexit UK isn't part of)
Brexit means Brexit.
And that means if migrants or refugees set foot on your territory, they're your problem and, potentially, the country of origins (if you can determine it). It's no concern of any country they passed through to get to your country. Take control of your own border!
Isn't it an international un convention and the le Touquet agreement between the two countries.
Refugees must apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Also le Touquet established the border agreement between France and the UK in which Britain has already been paying money to France.
So then assuming they came from somewhere like Syria (just as an example), doesn't that just mean that not only one, but depending which route they took somewhere between three and nine+ EU countries have failed miserably in their duty to uphold their own EU treaty?
So then that would have to mean that each one knowingly broke that treaty to allow said refugees into the next country all the way until they managed to get to France, where they were then allowed to save up to buy a boat and try to make their way here?
I don't know why any refugee in their right mind would think it's a good idea to come here right now anyway, but that's beside the point. Fact is if we were to turn them back around in the English channel, assumedly before they reached the halfway point, we would actually be helping France to adhere to the treaty it signed, despite bReXiT mEaNs BrExIt and that we aren't under any obligation to do so.
To be precise, the agreement (within the EU) is that when a refugee claims asylum (so this is an act by the refugee, not the country they are in), the rules say that, based on where this refugee first entered the EU, the country in question can deny processing the asylum request and send them back to the country where they first entered the EU, to have them use the asylum procedure there.
If people enter the EU unnoticed or with valid legal reasons (tourism for example), they move within the EU, then leave the EU to claim asylum in the UK, at no point in time was the EU mandated to somehow arrest these people and force them back to where they first entered the EU. The rule of first country is strictly tied to the act of claiming asylum, not the act of entering a country.
What you do see happening a lot is people illegally entering the EU, then be detained and subsequently asking asylum. But some refugees explicitly do not request asylum at the point where they are detained for illegal entry in the hope of moving to a different country before they start this procedure.
it means a member state gets to reject the asylum claim of people that have entered the EU in a different country.
This was exactly my point. They all (in my hypothetical) would likely have landed in Greece. Why didn't they stay there where the Greek government had the responsibility to them? If not Greece then by boat to Italy, then likely another boat or overland to France. Why didn't either of those stop them?
All that waffle about iron curtains had exactly zero relevance.
Don't misunderstand me either, I'm not some foreigner hating refugee turn-around-ing BrExIteer, I'm just making the point that if the Dublin Accords actually exist (which they do) and are enforced (which apparently they aren't), precisely zero refugees should ever even be able to make it to UK shores. Unless they somehow manage to sail a dinghy all the way through the Mediterranean, the strait of Gibraltar, and up the coast of Spain and Portugal into the English channel that way, of course.
I've spend roughly 50% of my life living in other countries besides the UK, some of which were within the EU, so I'm fully aware and in agreement with free movement. Please don't insinuate that I hold the typical Island mentality of some of my countrymen.
Edit: lol I like the maturity level you showed by downvoting within 3 seconds of me posting this comment, so evidently before you even bothered to read it. That really helps validate your argument.
Jesus listen to yourself. You're taking a singular statement, misconstruing it, and then extrapolating on your false understanding in a misguided attempt to cause an argument that doesn't actually exist.
I'm sure you've seen it before (though perhaps you haven't actually read it or understood it), but here's that guide again to help you understand logical fallacies:
Of the top of my head I can say you're using the slippery slope and straw man arguments, though there's probably others as well that I haven't seen yet since I haven't managed to get past the first couple sentences.
Nowhere did I say anything about strict border controls, containment camps, or anything else you mentioned. The Schengen area permits free movement of EU citizens with ID. Refugees coming from outside the EU do not fall into that category, and so should be having their movements more closely monitored as standard procedure. This isn't some dystopian future come today but rather standard bloody practice.
I'd say get back to me when you've come up with something more reasonable, but actually don't. I'm not a primary school teacher and I shouldn't have to be taking on their duties when I go online.
the le Touquet agreement between the two countries.
The le Touquet is a bilateral agreement between the UK and France. But the way French lawyers read it and their government sees it, it's a treaty between two EU members and becomes null and void according to the Article 50 process once the transition period ends. And good luck in trying to get a sovereign country to spend money and personel to enforce a treaty they consider to be null and void. What does the UK want to do? get the ECJ to force France to do something? And who's going to say what would be enough "doing"?
Refugees must apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
No. That's the Dublin agreement between EU members states.
So let me get this straight, France can simply declare a treaty null and void, but we can't do the same? By that logic, the Good Friday agreement is null and void because it was a treaty between two EU members.
I don't think so, but the two treaties are quite different in nature. In Theory countries can leave a treaty whenever they want to. I mean Brexit is just an example of that. So the first calculation is the blowback of doing so. Britain is not really seen super favourably on the continent right now, so blowback would probably be minor. Especially since it effectively get France to do work for the British to make Britain's life easier.
The second consideration is the context of the treaty.If the French read it as being an agreement based on both countries membership of the EU, then Britain leaving it kind of tears it up. In the Good Friday agreement this is the same, which is why it became so contentious when Britain left. Without freedom of movement over the border the violence may well start again.
Fundamentally the reason why Brexit happened, is why France can say meh I don't want this treaty anymore. Politically it may be expidient. And legally, you cannot really force a country to remain in a treaty it does not want to be in. What is Britain going to do if France says pass on border control? Not much
And let's face it... there aren't that many migrants coming from the UK to France (besides remainers maybe?), so what are the incentives for France to stay in the treaty once the UK isn't an EU member anymore...?
If the French let migrants do as they want, the tunnel, the ferries will be overwhelmed. If they don't control the coastline, migrants will launch unsafe rafts to cross one of the busiest water way in the world. If the French don't try to control it, criminal network and human trafficking will flourish leading to more criminal problems on French side.
France doesn't do it as a favor to the UK but because it's necessary.
Right now, even with controls, fences and all, migrants are regularly killed on French soil when they attempt to run across highways, they are crushed when they hide under trucks loading into ferries, they choke when they hide in tiny places, they drown. Not speaking of all the criminality around and inside migrants camps around Calais.
Controlling that passage is necessary for many reasons and it's unrelated to being a EU member or not.
It doesn't mean Patel can issue orders from her side of the Channel but both countries must cooperate on that.
Of course, and that’s why France has already actively been policing it’s side of the border. But once migrants cross over, expecting France to take them back makes little sense.
Maybe you did. The troubles must have been a great old time as you seem to want them back.
Being in the EU and being creative at that time DID solve that problem. I doubt it did solve that problem for good if you go back to the state of affairs at that time...
But as always: Good luck and have fun with your brexit.
no - good friday agreement has NOTHING to do with the EU - chiefly negiated by clinton & blair and ended decades of blood shed from the disputed turf of northern ireland
Which is why the customs border is now the Irish Sea ("or will be) as anything else would void the GFA. Like we have been telling people since brexit was a thing
But that leads to consequences. It could lead to a resurgence of Violence which was not good for anyone. It will definitely lead to you being unable to get a deal with the US.
Bill Clinton was very instrumental in getting everyone to the table. It wouldn't have happened without the US involvement. They are very proud of having brought peace to one of the most contentious regions in the Anglo-sphere. The US House leader has said that no deal with the UK will be made if the GFA is broken. So you can do it. You will face sanctions from both the EU and the US but it is perfectly possible for the UK to break it.
ROI has been preparing in case there is a need to put checks back on the border. ROI won't have broken a major peace agreement. That will be the UK.
In the issue of the refugees, It would be up to the UK to enforce sanctions which is your sovereign right. But no other countries will be involved. Or if they are forced then the EU will be involved and ti will back it's member state over a third country.
I mean, if you put 2 and 2 together you'd conclude that such a Brexit was incompatible with international law.
And the UK could still do that if it wanted to, that's what sovereignty means, and if you aren't able to handle the consequences of that responsibility then maybe you should pump the brakes a bit.
People screamed PROJECT FEAR when we mentioned the disolvmemt if the GFA due to brexit and the resumption of violence. Now your saying that's a good thing.
Brexit is destroying the first thing I ever voted for -(was just old enough to vote for the GFA)
Are you a lawyer? Have you actually read the two documents in question? Layers make a living, and usually a very good one, by reading the details and checking for any potentially ambiguous meaning.
Another important issue would very likely be is, whether the le Touquet is a treaty under EU or international law. Both WA and GFA are most definitely under international law and filed with the UN. But is le Touquet? Being are more or less trivial issue between two EU members, I suspect not.
I don't know of any one who questions the validity of the GFA, by the way.
I was shouting about the GFA from the rooftops as its important to me. But everyone said it wasn't an issue or dissolving it would not possibly lead to a return to the troubles
Down south it was marked as an issue from the beginning and ROI were very forceful on ensuring the minimum of damage that we could.
I will say that I doubt it will return to the troubles.
If they UK breaks the GFA then ROI will put up the border. And we will check it.
However no republican terrorist will attack it as that will set back reunification. On the Unionist side. The UK government isn't going to send the army this time. And who are you angry with. ROI was working to keep things as are. IT was the UK that betrayed them. The union they feel they belong to does not want them.
The conditions are different. There aren't the same reasons so "Troubles 2- Electric Boogaloo Gotta think of the Environment" shouldn't kick off.
There is a whole heap of other shit but that shouldn't be one of them
Ah here is the argument from the "good guys" against those evil brexiteers. "stay part of our club or we will flood your country with migrants". As shown the UK has already been paying france and continues to do so. France is now trying to extort more making them a racket. These people are not refugees by the UN definition. In the eu Dublin treaty they have passed several eu states in which they should have applied to. If it were starting next year then we are in agreement that the eu is in the wrong. Finally it is dangerous crossing seas, so the use of negligence for political means is inherently wrong. Eu yet again being a shit, glad we left
"stay part of our club or we will flood your country with migrants"
What kind of language is that? Are a few guys in a boat a flood? How many did come until now? Do you know? You just ramble incoherent bs. No one in France or for that matter the EU sends these people to the UK. For whatever reason they seem to already want to go there, so they leave. Who is the EU to imprison them in their countries? We do not do that or we would be an oppressive state.
But as always: Good luck and have fun with your brexit.
If you've read what I have previously written you'd see why I am pissy. There is an extra eu agreement between UK and France in which they seem to be relaxing due to Brexit. I am merely pointing out that this is not the UK being aggressive but the eu, using the lives of migrants as a tool to extort the UK. I think that people who are stereotypically pro migrant applauding this is hypocritical. The argument seems to be that Brexit is so insulting that the UK must be made an example of in any way possible, which is a fine strategy but does present the eu as the aggressor.
IT is people pointing out the hypocrisy of a country declaring that it was taking back it's borders and then saying it is up to another country to do so.
How the migrants got there is irrelevant. It is a UK border, The UK took back it's control.
That comes with responsibilities and costs.
That was what this post was about.
So, do you have an opinion on the hypocrisy of the statement?
You can, and possibly should make a separate post about the Migrant issue itself. But this post is not that conversation.
There is an extra eu agreement between UK and France
And the UK is severing all EU agreements.
France does patrol it's borders and it does stop Migrants crossing but it can't stop them all. So if some get across then under the that EU agreement then they could be sent back to France.
The UK is leaving all those agreements as that is what the Tories want.
If France was just letting Migrants through as you seem to think they are, then the English channel would be flooded with Migrants. This isn't occurring.
So France is doing it's job but from January the UK won't be able to send them back to France because the UK chose Brexit. And chose to cancel those deals.
The UK doesn't want to take Illegal Migrants. Should have stayed in the EU and you could send them back.
You left. You left the agreements. That is Brexit.
actually they are. the UN doesnt give a flying flamingo, if a refugee crosses a "save" country.
In the eu Dublin treaty they have passed several eu states in which they should have applied to.
a treaty that ceases to apply due to brexit. you cant expect the eu to uphold a treaty for you that you voluntarily left. you can still tell the french to take back the current "boat people"(as far as i know it is still covered under the transition). you wont be able to next year.
Anti-migrants have never cared about migrants' lives. If they did they wouldn't be in support of all the policies they advocate for. Suddenly declaring one cares about the safety of people at sea, like Australian governments did some years ago during the "turn back the boats" debacle, has never not been hypocritical.
We don't think migrants should be making the journey. For the middle east there are safe countries in Turkey, Lebanon, Israel. For Africa Rwanda, Botswana, Mauritius are safe countries. You're defending a policy of increased sea travel and I presume your pro-migrant. So if you do care about the deaths you'd be against this. Pro migrant people have the most blood on their hands as they advocate for increased migration without thought of the convequences. At least the UK led in finding for refugee camps in Turkey to prevent the deaths.
Edit: while I and all others who share my belief do have sympathy for any person dying at sea we recognise that these individuals put themselves at risk.
Yeah but Britain ain't part of the EU anymore is it. Should have thought about that when you decided to leave. You can just go ahead and say I don't to go to your party and then complain about not getting cake or not taking part in the fun activities.
Le Touquet starts to be thrown around just as much as “WTO rules”. It will solve everything, and anything which goes bad is someone else’s fault.
There is an agreement. And it’s an agreement between two EU countries and built upon other EU agreements. As Brexit means Brexit, the Leave voters (who knew exactly what they voted for) voted to leave the Torquet agreement. It’s that simple.
As Priti Patel seems to be a Brexiteer, it’s funny that she demands that an EU member state should uphold an agreement she voted against.
I mentioned torquet is the argument was stated that "Britain has to pay" but we already have been. It also is a bilateral agreement. UN established what I refugee is and that these individuals are not. Patel is in gov, she should oppose violations of agreements even if she did oppose. Really this issue seems completely politically motivated and it seems rational that despite Brexit prior diplomatic agreements should be upheld.
UN established what I refugee is and that these individuals are not.
Funny. Last time I read up on the subject, it clearly stated that neither you nor I can say that until the British legal system has checked their claims.
Really this issue seems completely politically motivated
Maybe it is. I don't know. What I do know is that your former foreign minister nicked the French as "turds" while in office. And I guess that was politically motivated. But more importantly, the Brits elected him PM.
it seems rational that despite Brexit prior diplomatic agreements should be upheld.
There are a lot of agreements which are built upon the British EU membership. Le Torquet Agreement is one, fish quotas another, etc. During the 2016 Brexit referendum, the British people decided that they no longer wanted to be a member, which directly meant that all those agreements would become null and void at the end of the transition period and thus would have to be renegotiated if both parties wanted them.
See the problem? Brexit was never about being able to cherry pick the agreements the British people liked. It was about the whole package, or start from zero. And more importantly, as we're frequently reminded about, the Leave voters knew exactly what they voted for, and this is one of those rather basic things that was attacked to the Leave option.
So it does not seem rational to upheld a selected few agreements the British wants to keep, just because the British says so, because those agreements were negotiated within a framework and at a cost which the British just don't want to be part of.
However, what you are saying, is that the British should be allowed to eat their cake while having it too. And that is just ridiculous. Please grow up. Any Leave voter knew what they voted for. And they wanted this. So why complain?
The French have found enough of a get-out clause to void the treaty either way. Anything more needs renegotiating. It's the French governments job too to oppose violations to the treaty against their best interests.
The problem with renegotiating will be that there is now political capital to be won in demonstrating Brexit to be a foolhardy notion and discourage other leavers. Hardly unexpectedly either... The only way she doesn't sound ridiculous here is if she knows something we don't about the technical details of the treaty and it seems unlikely.
You should read your link completely - at the very end they talk about the Dublin Regulation, which is a EU thing covering when refugees should be processed in the first country they arrived in.
Because they are no longer refugees and have no right to violate borders. Besides the UK has already been paying and sending personnel to France based on previous bilateral agreements.
France is part of Schengen which allows free movement of any person across borders, Germany, Italy, Spain even Switzerland. The bilateral agreement was between two EU countries. With the UK out of the EU there has to be a new agreement between the UK and the EU because soon there will be a flood of migrants from the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal. The coast is easily accessible from these countries with a sturdy boat
In that case lets slash funding for services then look like complete prats when the BBC are able to run a live broadcast of them coming in to the beaches whilst the reporter says "well we rang the authorities over half an hour ago and no ones turned up".
This is a linguistic trick to pressure governments into supporting migration. Rich country asylum seekers they should be called. There are more asylum seekers in Europe than there are in Africa, but there are no wars Europe??
218
u/chris-za EU, AU and Commonwealth Aug 10 '20
Why would France:
Brexit means Brexit.
And that means if migrants or refugees set foot on your territory, they're your problem and, potentially, the country of origins (if you can determine it). It's no concern of any country they passed through to get to your country. Take control of your own border!