Westminster Politics

[oates]

How is it it not constructive? It’s the biggest hurdle to any solution, it is against international law to turn back asylum seekers. It’s not a glib term, they are protected and to throw them in with economic migrants is the least constructive point you can make.
No country will ever accept the turning back of asylum seekers. That’s all there is to it

And this discussion about finding ways to stop them from being killed in the Channel isn't about them being turned away, it's about countries not processing them and sending them to countries which have agreed but aren't honouring their quotas. As far as I am aware the French police and border guards are not processing whether they are economic or asylum seekers when they gather them up in a French Border town and march them to the Italian border or allow them to camp in the Calais area.

 

[Jippy]

How is it it not constructive? It’s the biggest hurdle to any solution, it is against international law to turn back asylum seekers. It’s not a glib term, they are protected and to throw them in with economic migrants is the least constructive point you can make.
No country will ever accept the turning back of asylum seekers. That’s all there is to it

Even if they're setting out to sea in non-seaworthy vessels organised by criminal gangs with no qualified person piloting it? Surely any country would have a duty of care to try and stop that and prevent loss of life?

 

[oates]

I am not and would appreciate you stopping claiming that I am. The big fat elephant in the room is that they are fleeing to an under policed wealthy country that has huge gaps in the part of the labor market that they are eligible for because of said country's recent developments.

But I'm sure you'll just say thats wumming too.

What, even if it might be one of a few reasons has that got to do with saving their lives. I can't help but feel you are wumming when you continually come up with daft posts and even admit to mickey taking.

 

[Abizzz]

What, even if it might be one of a few reasons has that got to do with saving their lives. I can't help but feel you are wumming when you continually come up with daft posts and even admit to mickey taking.

It has everything to do with saving their lives when there's no other way for them to get there than risking it. I took the micky out of the idea that Europe was going to treat dinghy's like some dangerous substance only because people misuse them. I did this by saying it would be better to give those misusing them better options instead (yes a silly idea too when there's ferries, planes and trains) I lacked the imagination that anyone would take it seriously.

 

[oates]

It has everything to do with saving their lives when there's no other way for them to get there than risking it. I took the micky out of the idea that Europe was going to treat dinghy's like some dangerous substance only because people misuse them. I did this by saying it would be better to give those misusing them better options instead (yes a silly idea too when there's ferries, planes and trains) I lacked the imagination that anyone would take it serious.

So, the nub of it is that you believe that the best way to stop them from being taken advantage of by smugglers who don't care for their safety is to allow them to cross which ever borders they want to freely but preferred instead to take the mickey by saying give them better boats.

Why not process them and send them to a country that has already agreed a quota or does it have to be freedom of movement across all borders in the World? And you claim you're not on the wum. It's not the situation we're facing and it just ain't going to happen, especially when half of the UK has voted against freedom of movement into the UK by a few select wealthier countries.

Of course I personally would like to have no borders but it won't happen and there wouldn't be the public money to give everyone without a job benefits in the UK if its population moved to 300 million inhabitants and 70% unemployments.

Do you have any ideas meantime to stop these smugglers from killing people in flimsy overloaded rubber floating platforms?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The channel crossings look like an almost impossible problem to solve, given the practical and political realities. The proximate issue of people getting into dangerous boats on French beaches is hard to police, and the French authorities are doing a terrible job at it. The wider problem of tens of thousands of people willing to risk their lives to get to the UK from Europe requires continent-wide cooperation and compromise to mitigate it even slightly, which looks as far away as ever. Sadly, I think we will see many more people drowning at sea in search of a better life.

 

[oates]

The channel crossings look like an almost impossible problem to solve, given the practical and political realities. The proximate issue of people getting into dangerous boats on French beaches is hard to police, and the French authorities are doing a terrible job at it. The wider problem of tens of thousands of people willing to risk their lives to get to the UK from Europe requires continent-wide cooperation and compromise to mitigate it even slightly, which looks as far away as ever. Sadly, I think we will see many more people drowning at sea in search of a better life.

One might think that a bit of good old fashioned policing, sitting on your bum and phoning or emailing the manufacturers of rubber floating products and asking them for a list of their customers might take an hour or two. Setting up surveillance operations in grotty yachty style outlets to see whether anyone comes in and buys one or two with or without cheap outboard motors during the off-holiday season and following them discretely with a number of policemen, two or three maybe to swap positions from time to time, and hopefully eventually to a beach near Calais and then getting a number of their colleagues to chase these purchasers of rubber products up and down the dunes, eventually getting some handcuffs on them sounds very near damn impossible in eventually rounding up all of the smugglers. It's never as simple as one might think.

 

[Abizzz]

So, the nub of it is that you believe that the best way to stop them from being taken advantage of by smugglers who don't care for their safety is to allow them to cross which ever borders they want to freely but preferred instead to take the mickey by saying give them better boats.

Honestly I don't know what more to say about this. Your home secretary came up with a silly idea and it was made fun of.

And no, making fun of silly ideas won't solve anything. And yes, I was aware that it doesn't.

Why not process them and send them to a country that has already agreed a quota or does it have to be freedom of movement across all borders in the World? And you claim you're not on the wum. It's not the situation we're facing and it just ain't going to happen, especially when half of the UK has voted against freedom of movement into the UK by a few select wealthier countries.

Of course I personally would like to have no borders but it won't happen and there wouldn't be the public money to give everyone without a job benefits in the UK if it's population moved to 300 million inhabitants and 70% unemployments.

Do you have any ideas meantime to stop these smugglers from killing people in flimsy overloaded rubber floating platforms?

Europe and the UK have every mean necessary to make the French/UK border as safe as the French/German, French/Swiss border, French/Belgium border or any other French border for these unfortunate people. They do for their citizens and other visitors. However one party on the French/UK border wants to use the natural danger of said border as a deterrent.

Edit: I should clarify the silly idea wasn't to hunt down the smugglers. I'm all for that. The silly idea was to monitor dinghy sales and motor sales across Europe for this purpose.

 

[oates]

Europe and the UK have every mean necessary to make the French/UK border as safe as the French/German, French/Swiss border, French/Belgium border or any other French border for these unfortunate people. They do for their citizens and other visitors. However one party on the French/UK border wants to use the natural danger of said border as a deterrent.

There's no will to stop migrants on their way to Calais unless occasionally the French police and Border Guards fancy catching them in a French border town with Italy and feel like marching them over the top of a pass in the middle of Winter, or even Autumn and Spring. The same for the Austrians and the Swiss, all they are interested in is collecting money for a vignette - motorway pass. I'm afraid the English Channel has always proved itself a tricky border. None of what you have to say addresses quotas and processing centres, only free movement which just insn't practicable at present. Preti won't have it. And I never wanted her to be my Home Secretary.

 

[Kentonio]

Obviously there's been a huge surge in purchasing rubber dinghies and outboard motors, their use is dangerous and the purchasing could be identified and it is one idea of stopping people from dying.

Do you know how many dinghies and outboard motors are sold each year and how many are out there? You say there's 'obviously' a huge surge in sales, do we have some evidence to support this that specifically points the blame at smugglers and not say the end of the Covid lockdowns and a surge in outdoor activities? I used to work as a sailing instructor many years ago, and in one small, poorly secured site we had about a dozen motorized hard-bodied power boats and rigid inflatables. Probably twice as many outboard motors. That was one small site on a coast with hundreds of other boat based companies within a couple of miles. There are over a million recreational boats registered in France, and goodness only knows how many outboard motors. The second hand market is vast and you can buy/sell boats/motors in a countless number of ways.

I think the likelihood that smugglers are having any significant impact whatsoever on boat/engine sales is wildly unlikely (unless its incredibly localized). Putting controls on a market that size will require a vast amount of effort and resource. It also won't do anything about all the kit already out there. Given that smugglers are criminals, doesn't it just seem obvious that if they can't buy a boat they'll just steal one, particularly as this stuff is very often not well protected?

 

[oates]

Do you know how many dinghies and outboard motors are sold each year and how many are out there?

No, not off hand however a brief google search suggests that 1,185 a day on average are crossing. If the dinghies being used were also carrying an average of 30 people (suggested number due to recent reporting) that means on any 'average' day 39.5 dinghies would be used. 276.5 in a 7 day period plus outboards of course. It may not be more than is usually bought during covid times for holidays on and off season but perhaps enough just for the beady eye'd and on his toes policeman to be able to spot being purchased in several outlets in the Pay de Calais area Or not. It must be tough and hardly as easy as one always supposes.

How far can we suppose the averagely much more intelligent than plod smuggler will travel? Into Belgium? Next region over? The key might be to notice manufacturers selling an extra 300 dinghies a week between them and doing some intelligent - (big mistake) intelligence.

Edit. I suppose it's always just about possible that a policeman might notice a correlatation between this very un-noticeable not so large a number of dinghies and outboards being sold in that maybe it always seems to be the same familiar people buying these dinghies and outboards over and over again. Surely getting through 276 or so a week might be considered more than careless?

 

[Kentonio]

No, not off hand however a brief google search suggests that 1,185 a day on average are crossing. If the dinghies being used were also carrying an average of 30 people (suggested number due to recent reporting) that means on any 'average' day 39.5 dinghies would be used. 276.5 in a 7 day period plus outboards of course. It may not be more than is usually bought during covid times for holidays on and off season but perhaps enough just for the beady eye'd and on his toes policeman to be able to spot being purchased in several outlets in the Pay de Calais area Or not. It must be tough and hardly as easy as one always supposes.

How far can we suppose the averagely much more intelligent than plod smuggler will travel? Into Belgium? Next region over? The key might be to notice manufacturers selling an extra 300 dinghies a week between them and doing some intelligent - (big mistake) intelligence.

Edit. I suppose it's always just about possible that a policeman might notice a correlatation between this very un-noticeable not so large a number of dinghies and outboards being sold in that maybe it always seems to be the same familiar people buying these dinghies and outboards over and over again. Surely getting through 276 or so a week might be considered more than careless?

Having the police watch local sales in specific areas where smugglers are operating seems like common sense, but it's just not really practical to have actual controls nationally or even regionally given the scale. There's also the point of course that this would have to be handled by the French, and unless the UK want to pay for all these measures there's very little incentive for France to spend their time and resources protecting the UK border.

 

[oates]

Having the police watch local sales in specific areas where smugglers are operating seems like common sense, but it's just not really practical to have actual controls nationally or even regionally given the scale. There's also the point of course that this would have to be handled by the French, and unless the UK want to pay for all these measures there's very little incentive for France to spend their time and resources protecting the UK border.

I'm not talking about controls, I'm not saying they have to stop making and selling them, ffs nearly 300 a week/1200 a month are being nicked, borrowed or sold through a limited number of outlets. We're not talking your average kiss me quick hat shop where you can buy a 4ft long dinghy for your kids.

I'm talking about good old fashioned surveillance or email me your cctv of your till areas yachty shop.

Christ knows they are using one of a very few beaches, only one of them is 12km long and most of the rest unsuitable and too short close to retail and residential areas. Goodness knows the French couldn't spare 30 police for one operation of sitting in the dunes with some surveillance equipment for a couple of nights - hang on, that cnut Boris has offered us some extra resource - he can go and do one, we are quite capable of arguing endlessly for the Brits to supply coaches.

Edit. btw, it's still the French border until halfway across the Channel. We could do this together but what the French really want us to do is something that they would refuse to do. There are agreed quotas, there's agreed funding across Europe, only Germany is anywhere near honouring them.

 

[F-Red]

I'm talking about good old fashioned surveillance or email me your cctv of your till areas yachty shop.

Most gangs are ordering online to safe houses, dinghy sales aren't the issue here.

 

[oates]

Most gangs are ordering online to safe houses, dinghy sales aren't the issue here.

Feck me I knew it would be tricky. I suppose it's impossible then, no way of monitoring sales on EBay etc still no way of asking manufacturers if there's been an uplift to certain areas, most of these type sales are delivered straight from manufacturers or main wholesalers, or Delivery companies dropping off very similar sized and shaped boxes in the dozens every few days?

Back to playing in the dunes. I knew it wouldn't be easy.

 

[F-Red]

Feck me I knew it would be tricky. I suppose it's impossible then, no way of monitoring sales on EBay etc still no way of asking manufacturers if there's been an uplift to certain areas, most of these type sales are delivered straight from manufacturers or main wholesalers, or Delivery companies dropping off very similar sized and shaped boxes in the dozens every few days?

Back to playing in the dunes. I knew it wouldn't be easy.

It's all produced in the Far East and shipped directly. It's easier to target the gangs than it is the manufacturers/sellers of dinghy. It's actually far easier to address the problem with policy & diplomacy I'd argue. Clear failings from every side of the Channel on this issue.

 

[oates]

It's all produced in the Far East and shipped directly. It's easier to target the gangs than it is the manufacturers/sellers of dinghy. It's actually far easier to address the problem with policy & diplomacy I'd argue. Clear failings from every side of the Channel on this issue.

Yes, I know it's always going to be hard. What about the DHLs of this world, do you know they actually demand a copy invoice of all goods being delivered in every country?

If I order a watch from Japan, is there an organisation that starts fecking advertising watches to me on every page I look at on t'net 5 minutes afterwards?

I don't know it's just all so fecking impossible. We can always wait another few years for diplomacy.

 

[Foxbatt]

I'm sorry I missed your joke however it is a perfectly sensible idea. These smugglers are buying them by the dozen, the manufacturers, wholesalers, retail outlets have never had it so good while taking part in helping smugglers to make money and kill people.

These immigrants hear about a country of workers and layabouts, a country where people aren't being killed by the governments or insurgents in their countries, feck me I'd be heading for anywhere in Europe I've already got friends and family in to help get me and my family set up. It ain't rocket science or were you just taking the piss again?

edit, some are asylum seekers, some are immigrants, they're all looking for a better life, I don't feel an urgent need to mind my Ps&Qs describing them when what we need is for people to stop making money out of killing them.

Now that is a sensible post. But the question that needs to be asked is why are all these countries so unstable? Why is Iraq unstable? Why is Libya unstable? Why is Syria unstable? Yes they were all brutal dictators but their lives were a lot better under the brutal dictators. There were no smugglers or insurgents. They go out and a lot of them go back home. People do not get killed wholesale like they are getting now. They had food and free education and basic needs. Not anymore after Europe and the UK and the US got involved in their countries and toppled whoever was ruling them. Now its absolute chaos and disaster.

 

[Buster15]

It's all produced in the Far East and shipped directly. It's easier to target the gangs than it is the manufacturers/sellers of dinghy. It's actually far easier to address the problem with policy & diplomacy I'd argue. Clear failings from every side of the Channel on this issue.

Diplomacy can be extremely useful, providing those involved have a common purpose.
But in this case, it is clear that France and the UK simply don't agree.

Don't agree that it is easier to target the gangs. These are highly sophisticated organisations who know how to evade detection.
But the dinghies and engines are a commodity that are bought and sold and transported. And that can leave a cyber footprint. As does the money.

 

[esmufc07]

Well worth a watch

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Pexbo]

We’ll worth a watch

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Refreshing to hear from an adult in the room.

 

[TwoSheds]

Well worth a watch

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Nailed it.

 

[oates]

Apparently the dinghies being used by the smugglers are being bought in Germany with cash and transported over at least one border to the North West of France, not bought in France, neither online from Far East.

 

[Adisa]

Lucky to have travelled to many countries in my short life. Migrated to the UK on the 24th of October 2009 (a decision I do not regret).
However, I have never, never...never seen a country as obsessed with a non-issue as I have seen the UK is with migration.
If you're from Syria, Iraq... In fact almost anywhere that isn't Australia, New Zealand and co, there is almost no legal route of emigrating to this country.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Those things you mentioned are of course part of the whole picture. Don't disagree with any of that.
But remember, my initial post was in response to Boris saying that he intends to 'break the traffickers business model'

A business model that is totally reliant on the supply of boats and engines.
Nothing comical about that. And I don't choose to respond to your posts by trivialising them.
I am instead trying to make a constructive suggestion.

Fair enough, but there are some key points to consider

1) crossing the Channel is not illegal

2) refugees are neither illegal or migrants

3) under international law anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that signed the 1951 convention. And have the right to remain there while their claim is assessed.

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.

 

[sun_tzu]

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.
[/QUOTE]

Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly

 

[Buster15]

Fair enough, but there are some key points to consider

1) crossing the Channel is not illegal

2) refugees are neither illegal or migrants

3) under international law anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that signed the 1951 convention. And have the right to remain there while their claim is assessed.

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.

Quite agree with you. But as usual, Boris knows best... As does his henchmen/women the foreign secretary.

 

[sun_tzu]

4) last year 79.5M refugees lost their home.

The UK took in 20,339. Or 0.026%.

The problem is not the traffickers business model but countries asylum and immigration policies which make it near impossible to apply remotely.

Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million that were Internationally displaced and looking for a new country

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population is I would suspect better than most countries

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly

 

[cyberman]

Even if they're setting out to sea in non-seaworthy vessels organised by criminal gangs with no qualified person piloting it? Surely any country would have a duty of care to try and stop that and prevent loss of life?

It’s not illegal to do so though? Didn’t Top Gear cross the channel in cars?!
A lot of teeth nashing is over aspects of this which aren’t illegal no matter how it’s framed.

 

[Jippy]

It’s not illegal to do so though? Didn’t Top Gear cross the channel in cars?!
A lot of teeth nashing is over aspects of this which aren’t illegal no matter how it’s framed.

No teeth gnashing, I just genuinely think any law enforcement person seeing a heavily overloaded dinghy full of people setting off into the channel might want to query it. They are part of a criminal operation.

I've not heard anyone say about dying refugees, 'well fecking Clarkson managed it in a mini.'

The actual act of crossing the Channel is obviously one part of a whole chain of events though.

 

[cyberman]

No teeth gnashing, I just genuinely think any law enforcement person seeing a heavily overloaded dinghy full of people setting off into the channel might want to query it. They are part of a criminal operation.

I've not heard anyone say about dying refugees, 'well fecking Clarkson managed it in a mini.'

The actual act of crossing the Channel is obviously one part of a whole chain of events though.

All I’m saying is crossing the channel isn’t an illegal act, people have swam it as well.
It’s why there’s so much bluff from both sides, it’s almost impossible to solve. Human trafficking is everywhere, it’s just more obvious when on a dinghy

 

[711]

All I’m saying is crossing the channel isn’t an illegal act, people have swam it as well.
It’s why there’s so much bluff from both sides, it’s almost impossible to solve. Human trafficking is everywhere, it’s just more obvious when on a dinghy

It is illegal to swim from France to England, the French say it's too dangerous. Cross-channel swimmers have to go England to France, no choice.

Completely irrelevant to the debate of course, just thought I'd mention it. Climbing Everest is easier than swimming the Channel apparently, judging by the number of people that have done it.

 

[Kentonio]

It is illegal to swim from France to England, the French say it's too dangerous. Cross-channel swimmers have to go England to France, no choice.

Completely irrelevant to the debate of course, just thought I'd mention it. Climbing Everest is easier than swimming the Channel apparently, judging by the number of people that have done it.

Didn't know this, but apparently this is completely correct. 1881 solo swimmers compared to over 4000 Everest ascents. Cool factoid!

 

[RedChip]

Didn't know this, but apparently this is completely correct. 1881 solo swimmers compared to over 4000 Everest ascents. Cool factoid!

Off topic, but piqued my ineterest too; so I dug a little bit into the stats. Seems only around 33% make it to the summit of Everest, whereas around 45% complete the swim. So climbing Everest is more inetersting and tougher than swimming the channel!

 

[arnie_ni]

Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.

 

[V.O.]

Off topic, but piqued my ineterest too; so I dug a little bit into the stats. Seems only around 33% make it to the summit of Everest, whereas around 45% complete the swim. So climbing Everest is more inetersting and tougher than swimming the channel!

Stands to reason that Everest would be a lot more appealing. If you're not British or French, why would you care about the channel?

 

[sun_tzu]

Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.

Probabky attracted by the promised sunny uplands of brexit

 

[Kentonio]

Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.

The BBC did an article about this recently. Apparently there's stuff about language, family ties and even old colonial reputations that can play a part. Also maybe a bit of a grass is greener effect when they find out most European countries aren't particularly immigrant welcoming and perhaps naively believe Britain will be.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Well yes... but that includes internally displaced

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

So going by the unhcr figures it's 20.7 million that were Internationally displaced and looking for a new country

So the uk took 0.98% which when you consider the uk has around 0.87% of world population is I would suspect better than most countries

Plus consider people who have come in illegally will not be in the 20,399 figures and it can be argued the uk is more than pulling its weight on a per capita basis.

As you say an overhaul at un level would probably be the best starting point... and making a system that can cope with potential future climate migration but let's be honest that's not gonna be easy or achieved quickly

Bit of a ridiculous hair splitting post.

Even if we take your figures of the UK taking 0.98% of refugees with 0.87% of the World population, it is hardly worthy of the amount of media coverage it gets in the UK. Or the the radical UK policies.

Refugee numbers into the UK are about half of what they were 20 years ago. Yet the likes of the Daily Mail and Guido would have you believe it is at the worst level ever. It is pure and simple media and government xenophobia. And anyone falling for it is an idiot.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Why the fascination with the UK? Why don't they stay in France, Germany, Spain or wherever on mainland Europe?

Must be something to risk your life.

The English language and existing networks of family/friends/countrymen. A lot do go and stay in France and Germany anyway, we just don’t hear as much about them.