|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:41:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on May 3, 2024 12:41:35 GMT
I think there is some deliberate obscuring of the story by the usual media outlets, Zany. There are two related but different stories here. 1) there are small numbers of cases where people claiming asylum are passed between countries - eg where they have first made a claim in country A and then also made a claim in country B. B will usually then return them to A for their claim to be determined. To do so though in most cases , the law in B will be that B can only do that if it judges A a safe country. In UK and Ireland case, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the UK is not a safe country (how shameful is that?) and it is that matter the Irish government is seeking to address 2) meanwhile it seems that a significant proportion of those claiming asylum in Ireland arrive via Northern Ireland. While it is a bit of a mystery how they managed to get themselves to Northern Ireland - the Irish Sea is not easy to cross- their claim to asylum is valid in Ireland if they haven’t claimed say here previously. Some idiots there shout “send them back to UK” just as some idiots here shout “send them back to France” but in both cases they are just grandstanding. Yes I was familiar with Irelands calling us unsafe because of the risk of deportation to an unsafe country. The irony to those who are against the EU is that they refused to deal with asylum seekers travelling through France to get to the UK. That they did little to move those camped along the coast awaiting their boats and only try to tackle the problem as a asylum seekers and economic migrants attempt to leave. That those same asylum seekers and economic migrants are now reappearing in an EU country does seem like poetic justice. As for how they cross the Irish sea, there is no requirement to show a passport on a UK inter island ferry. Most of those entering Ireland will not have been processed and are therefore still asylum seekers. I can’t say I have ever travelled to NI by ferry (or any other method come to that). Website seems to suggest you need photo ID. Can someone from Syria without any entry documents (and presumably not having claimed asylum here) really just rock up at Liverpool and jump on a ferry? May well be the case I don’t know. Whether you are against or pro the EU, surely most would understand that individual countries are responsible for their own borders and hence any perceived weaknesses in France’s handling of people seeking asylum is not Ireland’s fault and asylum seekers reaching UK then travelling on to Ireland matters not a jot to France. |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:44:01 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 12:44:01 GMT
So do I saint as I think you know. I think the problem comes in attitude, for a while before we left the EU the attitude of the commission leant more towards accepting refugees at their word and assimilating them equally across the EU. Rather than the laborious task of researching each individual claim. The problem is that with FoM it was easy for these new citizens of the EU to move to the country that spoke the worlds language (English) to easier find work. Some measures were put in place to try and stop this happening but they were largely unsuccessful in that no one checks who is living or working where within the EU (That being the idea of the EU in the first place) As for Ireland taking refugees. The number appears high but 75% of those taken are from Ukraine which if I'm honest with myself is a very different thing to those escaping poverty and disease in mid and northern Africa. Both in ability to acclimatise and likelihood to return home after a few years. In reality what has happened is that the immense increase in those seeking to come to safe and wealthy first world countries has found our old systems wanting and we need a complete re-think on who we allow in and what constitutes asylum. (Should asylum now also include fear of starvation?) I have to say my statistics come from the other place, which, as we all know, tend to be self-serving and somewhat distorted. My comment was aimed more at the naivety of the glee expressed at the other place. If the Irish wish to return these people to the UK, they can do so by the simple expedient of granting them Irish passports. The idea that the Irish have been check-mated is simply incorrect. Such of these immigrants as remain in Ireland remain purely on sufferance in the interests of continuing good relations with the UK, not by force of necessity. Yeah, I can't see the Irish handing out Irish passports quite so innocently. a passport is a very powerful thing. |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:48:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on May 3, 2024 12:48:34 GMT
Don’t know whether the Irish system is the same as ours, but in the UK a successful asylum seeker ( now a refugee) would normally have to wait at least six years before qualifying to be a UK citizen and hence eligible for a UK passport.
|
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:48:39 GMT
Post by Saint on May 3, 2024 12:48:39 GMT
I have to say my statistics come from the other place, which, as we all know, tend to be self-serving and somewhat distorted. My comment was aimed more at the naivety of the glee expressed at the other place. If the Irish wish to return these people to the UK, they can do so by the simple expedient of granting them Irish passports. The idea that the Irish have been check-mated is simply incorrect. Such of these immigrants as remain in Ireland remain purely on sufferance in the interests of continuing good relations with the UK, not by force of necessity. Yeah, I can't see the Irish handing out Irish passports quite so innocently. a passport is a very powerful thing. Indeed. It is a weapon they have, though. Those people remaining in Ireland rather than the UK relies on Irish indulgence, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:50:19 GMT
Post by Saint on May 3, 2024 12:50:19 GMT
Don’t know whether the Irish system is the same as ours, but in the UK a successful asylum seeker ( now a refugee) would normally have to wait at least six years before qualifying to be a UK citizen and hence eligible for a UK passport. I've no idea. But if they were determined, they would simply change their system. They are a sovereign country, after all. So, Irish indulgence remains a requirement. It is they who have the final say. |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 12:53:54 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 12:53:54 GMT
Yes I was familiar with Irelands calling us unsafe because of the risk of deportation to an unsafe country. The irony to those who are against the EU is that they refused to deal with asylum seekers travelling through France to get to the UK. That they did little to move those camped along the coast awaiting their boats and only try to tackle the problem as a asylum seekers and economic migrants attempt to leave. That those same asylum seekers and economic migrants are now reappearing in an EU country does seem like poetic justice. As for how they cross the Irish sea, there is no requirement to show a passport on a UK inter island ferry. Most of those entering Ireland will not have been processed and are therefore still asylum seekers. I can’t say I have ever travelled to NI by ferry (or any other method come to that). Website seems to suggest you need photo ID. Can someone from Syria without any entry documents (and presumably not having claimed asylum here) really just rock up at Liverpool and jump on a ferry? May well be the case I don’t know. Whether you are against or pro the EU, surely most would understand that individual countries are responsible for their own borders and hence any perceived weaknesses in France’s handling of people seeking asylum is not Ireland’s fault and asylum seekers reaching UK then travelling on to Ireland matters not a jot to France. Unless its changed in the last few years there was no passport control where you get on the ferry. The confusing thing in a google search is that unless you are very specific Google assumes Northern Ireland means Ireland. Here's a regular traveller Why would you need a passport to travel from one part of the UK to another, it’s like asking do I need a passport to travel from Liverpool to Manchester. Most of the time you are not even asked for ID especially if you have your boarding pass on your phone. I travel back and forward regularly and the only time I’ve been asked for ID is when checking in a bag to go into the hold |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 13:02:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on May 3, 2024 13:02:33 GMT
I have no knowledge beyond the internet on this subject GGZ - even the ferry co website is a bit vague. Your quote suggests air rather than ferry (bag in hold bit) where they would certainly need photo ID. Anyway I guess it doesn’t really matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on May 3, 2024 13:40:07 GMT
The answer is not Rwanda, the answer is wet, rainy, midge infested Scottish islands, tented "refugee" camps, and basic services.
|
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 13:44:30 GMT
Post by equivocal on May 3, 2024 13:44:30 GMT
I think there is some deliberate obscuring of the story by the usual media outlets, Zany. There are two related but different stories here. 1) there are small numbers of cases where people claiming asylum are passed between countries - eg where they have first made a claim in country A and then also made a claim in country B. B will usually then return them to A for their claim to be determined. To do so though in most cases , the law in B will be that B can only do that if it judges A a safe country. In UK and Ireland case, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the UK is not a safe country (how shameful is that?) and it is that matter the Irish government is seeking to address 2) meanwhile it seems that a significant proportion of those claiming asylum in Ireland arrive via Northern Ireland. While it is a bit of a mystery how they managed to get themselves to Northern Ireland - the Irish Sea is not easy to cross- their claim to asylum is valid in Ireland if they haven’t claimed say here previously. Some idiots there shout “send them back to UK” just as some idiots here shout “send them back to France” but in both cases they are just grandstanding. The irony to those who are against the EU is that they refused to deal with asylum seekers travelling through France to get to the UK. That they did little to move those camped along the coast awaiting their boats and only try to tackle the problem as a asylum seekers and economic migrants attempt to leave. That those same asylum seekers and economic migrants are now reappearing in an EU country does seem like poetic justice. As for how they cross the Irish sea, there is no requirement to show a passport on a UK inter island ferry. Most of those entering Ireland will not have been processed and are therefore still asylum seekers. As yet there is no decision from Ireland, more specifically the Irish courts, that the UK is not a safe country because of the Rwanda issue. You may recall I copied the passage from the judgment which said the court declined to consider the issue because the original 'Safe Country' declaration was made improperly.
No doubt the issue of Rwanda will come back before the courts in Ireland. From what I read in a newspaper article the Irish constitutional systems would not allow the legislature to pass an Act designating a country safe if their courts found otherwise (unlike the abuse perpetrated by our government).
I was wondering what the implications might be if the Irish courts ruled in favour of the Irish government and the matter proceeded to the ECtHR and there was a finding that the UK was not a safe country there.
|
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 14:43:37 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 14:43:37 GMT
I have no knowledge beyond the internet on this subject GGZ - even the ferry co website is a bit vague. Your quote suggests air rather than ferry (bag in hold bit) where they would certainly need photo ID. Anyway I guess it doesn’t really matter. No t in the grand scheme of things, fact is they get across some how. Perhaps there's a dinghy forwarding service from the English channel  |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 14:46:07 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 14:46:07 GMT
The answer is not Rwanda, the answer is wet, rainy, midge infested Scottish islands, tented "refugee" camps, and basic services. The answer is process them before they even leave Africa. Then if they arrive here unprocessed then your wet, rainy, midge infested Scottish islands, tented "refugee" camps, and basic services.  Unless ofcourse they are a very clear case with identity papers and a solid story. (I'm still a softy leftie at heart) |
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 14:49:40 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 14:49:40 GMT
Yes I was familiar with Irelands calling us unsafe because of the risk of deportation to an unsafe country.The irony to those who are against the EU is that they refused to deal with asylum seekers travelling through France to get to the UK. That they did little to move those camped along the coast awaiting their boats and only try to tackle the problem as a asylum seekers and economic migrants attempt to leave. That those same asylum seekers and economic migrants are now reappearing in an EU country does seem like poetic justice. As for how they cross the Irish sea, there is no requirement to show a passport on a UK inter island ferry. Most of those entering Ireland will not have been processed and are therefore still asylum seekers. As yet there is no decision from Ireland, more specifically the Irish courts, that the UK is not a safe country because of the Rwanda issue. You may recall I copied the passage from the judgment which said the court declined to consider the issue because the original 'Safe Country' declaration was made improperly.
No doubt the issue of Rwanda will come back before the courts in Ireland. From what I read in a newspaper article the Irish constitutional systems would not allow the legislature to pass an Act designating a country safe if their courts found otherwise (unlike the abuse perpetrated by our government).
I was wondering what the implications might be if the Irish courts ruled in favour of the Irish government and the matter proceeded to the ECtHR and there was a finding that the UK was not a safe country there.
Yes I do remember and I realised we were talking what if's Re the ECtHR I think any judgement there would have to result in the UK leaving and setting up its own Human Rights bill. Nightmare. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,365
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 19:23:58 GMT
Post by Steve on May 3, 2024 19:23:58 GMT
Why do you think that. Look at the ECtHR judgements they've made and they are all complete common sense. Not their fault some of our laws are daft and even more of our government ministers dafter.
|
|
|
|
Rwanda
May 3, 2024 20:06:26 GMT
Post by Zany on May 3, 2024 20:06:26 GMT
Why do you think that. Look at the ECtHR judgements they've made and they are all complete common sense. Not their fault some of our laws are daft and even more of our government ministers dafter. You misunderstand me Steve. I was saying the Uk would need to break away from the ECtHR or back down and reverse decisions. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,365
|
Rwanda
May 4, 2024 9:40:35 GMT
Post by Steve on May 4, 2024 9:40:35 GMT
Why do you think that. Look at the ECtHR judgements they've made and they are all complete common sense. Not their fault some of our laws are daft and even more of our government ministers dafter. You misunderstand me Steve. I was saying the Uk would need to break away from the ECtHR or back down and reverse decisions. Or just behave like a government should, honestly |
|
