Britain outside the EU

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Carth

We could turn them back if we had the bottle, sadly that's gone the same way as a sense of humour . . it might offend someone

Where they are in distress that would break international law

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-su...03/duty-rescue

There is a duty pursuant to international law for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea. This duty is based on a long-standing and strongly felt moral obligation among seafarers. This is stated, for example, in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 98 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Regulation V-33. All states recognize this duty.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Where they are in distress that would break international law

oh that's a bummer, never mind, if we can't stop them arriving under huge stress and dangerous conditions it's time to open your wallet and buy them a ticket for SAFE passage here . . or are you happy to see them carrying on as they are?

[BenMcr]

We do indeed need to do something but it's a complex situation, and leaving human beings floating around in the Channel between us and France is not a solution.

I also do not think it's an issue we can fix by ourselves.

[papa smurf]

What does international law say about purposely putting your vessel into harms way so that you can circumvent a country's immigration laws.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

We do indeed need to do something but it's a complex situation, and leaving human beings floating around in the Channel between us and France is not a solution.

I also do not think it's an issue we can fix by ourselves.

Not complicated at all, it just needs people to pay for their tickets to save them drowning

Originally Posted by papa smurf

What does international law say about purposely putting your vessel into harms way so that you can circumvent a country's immigration laws.

oohh, waits for answer

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Carth

Not complicated at all, it just needs people to pay for their tickets to save them drowning

I continue to be shocked by the attitude that these are people that are not worth saving in the same way that anyone else is under the circumstances.

The same applies to us in the UK as it does to those trying to get across the Mediterranean.

The legal status of these people and what laws they may have broken is a separate issue to their immediate distress.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I continue to be shocked by the attitude that these are people that are not worth saving in the same way that anyone else is under the circumstances.

The same applies to use in the UK as it does to those trying to get across the Mediterranean.

Not sure if you misunderstand me or not, I've seen by the posts here that these people are definitely worth saving. . as are similar people worldwide.

I'm now saying that, in order to save these desperate people from the horrors they experience crossing the channel (and other waters around the world), all we need to do is provide the cash for tickets on a safe and comfortable means of transport.

£20 a week isn't much to give is it?

[BenMcr]

I don't believe any sincerity in that at all.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I don't believe any sincerity in that at all.

I see your point, it's only been an hour or so but I've yet to see a 'go fund me' page set up, or a new 'migrant charity' established.

I'm willing to give it time though . . . it's for a good cause after all . . isn't it?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Carth

Not sure if you misunderstand me or not, I've seen by the posts here that these people are definitely worth saving. . as are similar people worldwide.

I'm now saying that, in order to save these desperate people from the horrors they experience crossing the channel (and other waters around the world), all we need to do is provide the cash for tickets on a safe and comfortable means of transport.

£20 a week isn't much to give is it?

You're not wrong there mate, we should just let everyone and anyone come here from anywhere, give them all these lovely benefits that they are coming here for, parts of England must already be the most populated in Europe, we cannot keep letting these people into the UK, the majority seem to be young men, so why make the UK their preferred destination, surely other European countries have plenty of space, or is it, as I suspect, that we are way too soft and offer far more than any other nation.

[Carth]

I've just been thinking, and there may be good news . . . maybe £20 a week is too much and £10 a week will suffice.

Reason being, lots of these migrants 'group up' and pay hundreds of pounds to 'dodgy people' for an old boat with a knackered engine and a gallon of petrol, so all we need to do is convince them that a ticket on a ferry is possibly not only cheaper, but definitely safer . . I wonder why they've not thought of that?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

You're not wrong there mate, we should just let everyone and anyone come here from anywhere, give them all these lovely benefits that they are coming here for, parts of England must already be the most populated in Europe, we cannot keep letting these people into the UK, the majority seem to be young men, so why make the UK their preferred destination, surely other European countries have plenty of space, or is it, as I suspect, that we are way too soft and offer far more than any other nation.

What benefits do illegal immigrants get and how do they compare with other countries? How does that compare with asylum seekers? Also, how many asylum seekers do we have compared with other countries?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

What benefits do illegal immigrants get and how do they compare with other countries? How does that compare with asylum seekers? Also, how many asylum seekers do we have compared with other countries?

Here are some answers to your questions: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html

Does the UK have more asylum-seekers than most countries?

No, it does not. In the year ending March 2021, the UK received 26,903 asylum applications from main applicants only.

Over the same period,  asylum applications to other EU countries have also seen a decrease.In 2020, the highest number of asylum applicants received in the EU+ were received by Germany (122,015 applicants) and France (93,475 applicants). In the same period, the UK received the 5th largest number of applicants (36,041) when compared with the EU+ member states, around 7% of the total asylum applicants in the EU+ and UK. This would represent only the 17th largest intake when measured per head of population.

These four Members States account for around three quarters of all first-time applicants in the EU-27. These figures include  all asylum applicants, not just main applicants (i.e. including  children and other dependents). World-wide  around  85%  of all refugees live in developing regions , not in wealthy industrialised countries.

(Source:  Home Office,  EuroStat)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

We do indeed need to do something but it's a complex situation, and leaving human beings floating around in the Channel between us and France is not a solution.

I also do not think it's an issue we can fix by ourselves.

Ben's right. It's a complicated diplomatic matter and while that's going on we are a civilised nation that needs to rescue distressed people in/on the water.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ben's right. It's a complicated diplomatic matter and while that's going on we are a civilised nation that needs to rescue distressed people in/on the water.

. . . and while diplomatic discussions take place over the next 2 years, more people will attempt to make the crossing, and some will die trying.

If we and the French - or indeed the EU - can't stop them doing it in an unsafe manner, the obvious humanitarian option is to get them to do it safely . . . tickets please