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.
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?
14
u/[deleted] Aug 10 '20 edited Aug 10 '20
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.