I know he is not that popular in these parts, but this is worth a watch.
Umm also not true. The UK sought to amend the protocol. The UK then signed the withdrawal agreement instead of looking to address any issues that may result. Looks like yet another remarkable lack of foresight to me.
Lets also remember that any asylum seeker that attempts the channel crossing wants to come to the UK for whatever reason. They want to seek asylum here. So the UK trying to add a return clause for “irregularly residing people” simply looks like the UK trying to pass the buck to the EU when in reality many of these people have simply traveled through the EU. They haven’t originated from there.
As I said this is the UK’s refusal to work with France on a solution that is killing people. The solution is to simply process asylum applications in France and then provide the transport. Contingencies are obviously required for the failed applications etc. but it takes the bulk of the issue away from the criminal gangs supplying the boats etc.
Whilst you make fair points and the UK can and should be doing more. The UN rules for seeking asylum is that it is done in the first safe country the person enters.
So does this mean nowhere in the EU is considered safe?
Of course not, they choose UK because of the easier access to benefits that they can claim here compared to EU and France have no intention of stopping them using France as passageway as long as they get into boats crossing the Chanel then they can pass the blame onto UK.
3 Likes
Great point and I’ve no idea why that isn’t happening. But remember the UK has far less applications than France, Germany and also Italy I believe.
I don’t think it’s a 100% benefits thing, more a case of those people having some link here already, be that a language thing or perhaps family etc.
1 Like
I think Ken brought in the bendy buses, Boris got rid of them and brought in the new routemasters? Likewise, the Boris bikes were again introduced by Ken but effectively relabelled under Boris?
1 Like
What’s next, build a wall and let France pay for it? I wonder what would happen if the situation were the other way around and migrants from the UK tried to come to France. Would you prevent them from doing so or would you just make larger boats available to them?
Tbf actually borders are designed to keep people out, not to keep them in.
Easy solution for Macron is now to move the border back to Kent.
A solution that the UK proposed ages ago that the French rejected. France also then began dismantling the camps that had built up, forcing migrants to take increasingly desperate measures to try and cross into the UK.
The reason why France receives more applications than the UK is that France is the bottle-neck. Migrants enter the EU in Eastern Europe or the Mediterranean, and are then freely able to travel up towards the UK. They get to northern France - make applications for asylum in France, the majority of which are rejected. They cannot apply for asylum in the UK from France because France has so far rejected that solution so they have no choice but to make an illegal crossing into the UK.
Johnson’s the dick and whoever advised him. So petty and completely stupid and irressponsible.
Since when is dipolmacy conducted over twitter. Wake up man, your not that naive surely!
The letter doesn’t say anything that hasn’t also been proposed publicly already. It’s certainly less inflammatory than Castex writing to the European Commission asking for the UK to be penalised for simply enforcing the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Totally predictable that you and others see it differently though.
After all, people dying isn’t as important at taking offence at a perceived diplomatic faux pas. 
So you think it’s normal for a national leader to adress another national leader on twitter, get a grip please.
Personally, I’d prefer that Johnson didn’t publish correspondence in this way but let’s not pretend that these communications don’t get published at all. They do. Regularly, by everyone. Most just don’t do it via twitter.
What grown up countries don’t tend to do, however, is throw their toys out of their pram in response when the priority is to try and save human lives.
Good to see where your and Livvy’s priorities lie though.
1 Like
In the meantime everyone has got used to his behavior so much that it is unfortunately perceived as completely normal.
Your comparing twitter with a private letter that was leaked, FFS man!
Grown up countries don’t use twitter like the USA or UK. The grown up response is to withdraw invitations to these muppets and keep the diplomacy between civil servants. Anyone who says otherwise is naive!
No I never said that
I was not aware of that. I’ll look into it.
The channel is a physical barrier but I’m not sure that the reason France receives more asylum applications is because of the Channel and the fact they cant get into the UK. Again I’ll look into it but I have my doubts. That has all the feelings of a Daily Mail headline sorry.
That also doesn’t explain why countries in the EU and elsewhere take far more applications that the UK does. Most do seek asylum in the first country they get to by the looks of it. Especially those running from Syria.
2 Likes
Migrants make more than one application. They apply, get rejected, move and apply, etc. Some will simply just keep moving if they want to end up somewhere that isn’t their first safe country.
Worth noting that Germany deliberately opened up immigration. These are not solely asylum seekers when it comes to Germany, the majority are economic migrants. It has led to a fair amount of controversy, as you may be aware. Thought I’d mention it given that it wouldn’t have been raised as a factor by others, even those closer to it.
1 Like
This is one thing I do need to understand. The majority of asylum applications in the EU are rejected. Why is that and why would people simply decide to leave everything, down tools and then walk across a border and seek asylum with only whatever they can carry? Worth noting that most applications to the UK seem to be successful (2019 figures)
1 Like
It’s one of the reasons why it’s important to be cautious whenever you see quoted numbers about “asylum applications”.
Actual approval of asylum - 21% of 90,000 is less than 70% of 30,000.
To pretend it is now a matter of saving human lives when on the other hand you legitimize pushbacks is just hypocritical imo.
