PM says Brexit could bring Calais 'Jungle' to UK

[Quik]

By default to reject a claim you will have had to consider it to make a decision. To do as you suggest wil simply mean a bun fight in the UK and the UN. This is why in reality we do not behave that way. Withdraw from the Convention if you dont want to be bound by it and dont mind the consequences. Funnily enough unlike SF the UK government tends to stick to its legal obligations.

 

No, between former governments and activist judges we have repeatedly gold plated our 'legal obligations' so they bear no relation to our actual treaty obligations.

 

These criminals present a public order threat, we owe them nothing and are legally entitled to turn round any that make it through our security measures and return them to france.

[999tigger]

No, between former governments and activist judges we have repeatedly gold plated our 'legal obligations' so they bear no relation to our actual treaty obligations.

 

These criminals present a public order threat, we owe them nothing and are legally entitled to turn round any that make it through our security measures and return them to france.

 

When you talk about "these criminals" do you mean you mean all asylum seekers?

You have the difficulty that in the real world we tend to follow laws and respect our obligations. If you dont want to follow the Convention, then dont sign up to it. If you want to be relased from the obligations, then leave it. Be prepared to deal with the fallout.

 

Anyway as usual its all getting rather circular. For the moment we are signed up and we do consider claims for asylum for anyone who makes a claim to a UK border force officer. Until UKIP gets into power, then its likely to stay that way.

Edited February 8, 2016 by 999tigger

[Quik]

When you talk about "these criminals" do you mean you mean all asylum seekers?

You have the difficulty that in the real world we tend to follow laws and respect our obligations. If you dont wnat to follow the Convention, then dont sign up to it. If you want to be relased from the obligations, then leave it. Be prepared to deal with the fallout.

 

I mean those hijacking lorries to get here, ie the people in the french camps.

 

They are causing massive public order problems in case you didn't notice. The treaty permits us to refuse their applications and return them to france if they evade security.

 

Personally i would withdraw from the 1951 treaty as unfit for purpose and start talks on a new global treaty that would effectively deal with what will be an ever increasing problem. Clearly you would rather pretend the current system is working.

[999tigger]

Clearly you would rather pretend the current system is working.

 

I dont believe I expressed a view either way, but carry on making things up if it makes you feel better.

[gomgeg]

UKIP won the last EU election (mainly) because people were protesting that the mainstream parties have failed to address immigration concerns. Whilst the Tories managed to win back a significant amount of voters with the promise of a referendum (people believing that exiting the EU is the starting point for regaining control of our borders) they will not hang on to them if immigration is not addressed over this parliament. It is a gross miscalculation if the Tories actually think people can be scared out of their immigration concerns and into accept the status quo. The Tories have effectively sent out a message that even if the EU handcuffs are removed they aren't going to be tough on immigration... it is not a politically astute message to be sending out right now.

Totally agree, Cameron doesn't seem to have learned anything from the Scottish independence referendum, after which people went back to voting SNP at the general election. After this charade of a re-negotiation, quite a lot of people are likely to go back to voting UKIP. Not enough certainly to win any sort of power, but perhaps enough to damage the Tories chances at subsequent elections.

[999tigger]

Totally agree, Cameron doesn't seem to have learned anything from the Scottish independence referendum, after which people went back to voting SNP at the general election. After this charade of a re-negotiation, quite a lot of people are likely to go back to voting UKIP. Not enough certainly to win any sort of power, but perhaps enough to damage the Tories chances at subsequent elections.

 

I doubt it will be enough to counter the Corbyn effect. People might agree with UKIP about immigration and leaving the EU, but that's not the same as believing they can run the country.

[sutty27]

By default to reject a claim you will have had to consider it to make a decision. To do as you suggest wil simply mean a bun fight in the UK and the UN. This is why in reality we do not behave that way. Withdraw from the Convention if you dont want to be bound by it and dont mind the consequences. Funnily enough unlike SF the UK government tends to stick to its legal obligations.

 

MP's tend to look after their own interests, if the majority demand they withdraw from the convention, they will withdraw from the convention.

[ANGELFIRE1]

It is utter tripe. The camps are in Calais because the folk in them are trying to get illegally to the UK. There would not be camps in Dover because folk arriving illegally could just be stuck on the first boat back.

 

I was going to post, but the above says it all, spot on.

 

Angel1.

[gomgeg]

I doubt it will be enough to counter the Corbyn effect. People might agree with UKIP about immigration and leaving the EU, but that's not the same as believing they can run the country.

I agree, that's why I said they wouldn't have any power, but they can affect the result.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Our elected government can do whatever the British population wants them to do, what do you think will happen if our government decided to deport every illegal immigrant in the UK?

 

You would hear millions of folk saying, Yipeeeeeeeeee.

 

Angel1.