Sorry, wrong thread. Was meant for the migrant crossings thread.
“We are killing like we haven’t killed since 1967”
Gransnet forums
News & politics
The EU should “explore” Rwanda-style offshore migrant processing hubs, Ursula von der Leyen has said.
(78 Posts)The European Commission president wrote to the 27 leaders of EU member states before a summit on Thursday, which is set to be dominated by talks over migration.
More than half of EU governments have called on Brussels to work on proposals regarding the hubs as they seek to speed up deportations.
In 2018, Brussels ruled out deals with non-EU countries to process asylum seekers amid ethical and legal concerns. The commission said such hubs were neither “desirable nor feasible”.
But in a departure from that sentiment, Mrs Von der Leyen wrote in the letter, dated Monday evening: “We should also continue to explore possible ways forward as regards the idea of developing return hubs outside the EU, especially in view of a new legislative proposal on return.”
Well well. Seems the wheel is turning. Maybe Brussels are finding their inner Farage!
Donald Tusk and Michel Barnier “you cannot cherry pick your rules” are banging their respective drums for Poland and France.
The whole set up with the small boats is mafia-like. It's a criminal organisation which needs busting. If all those additional French police who were sent to Paris for The Olympics were now put on the case there, we might see some results.
WelwynWitch3
FriedGreenTomatoes2
I can’t believe Labour just said ‘no’ and cancelled Rwanda the first week they were in. Bluddy fools.
Their only reason was because it was a Tory idea, not their own, but strangely they were interested in Italy’s deal with Albania. Wonder how they would process all the Albanian illegals and criminals we have here!
Hi WelwynWitch on pages 1 and 2 of this long running thread the difference between the Rwanda proposals and the Italy/German interests in Albania processing is made clear. Completely different on crucial points.
Has Yvette Cooper said anything on this subject recently?
FriedGreenTomatoes2
I can’t believe Labour just said ‘no’ and cancelled Rwanda the first week they were in. Bluddy fools.
Their only reason was because it was a Tory idea, not their own, but strangely they were interested in Italy’s deal with Albania. Wonder how they would process all the Albanian illegals and criminals we have here!
The powers that be (or even us via reporters) all KNOW from where therubber boats are sourced. It’s no great mystery! Yet with all the intel … no progress has been made?
Beggars belief doesn’t it, all these years in.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG22LODqQNs
Migrants interviewed say Rwanda was not a deterrent.
On the dinghy sales issue: it was raised before (cant recall if on this thread or not, but they were featured in a Sky news article).
Yes, they have begun tracking sales and where from.
The purchase and carrying of them are done separately from carrying people. Hard to trace as they are bought in small numbers in Europe usually as close to France as possible.
They are then brought to the French coast. They are usually launched some way away from the point where people board them, and brought near to the coast but not onto the beach.
French police do puncture them whenever possible but they can't once a boat is loaded.
It was like the curates egg, good in parts, the EU migration plan worked out well and benefitted the UK. His mistake was in assuming that subsequent governments would see the need to continue with the control measures he proposed for asylum seekers. Why they didn’t do so still baffles me to be honest. Blaming somebody for a plan that would have worked if implemented as he intended, but then not taking any measures to come up with n alternative solution either is the element I don’t comprehend.
^If the chance of death - how many have died in the boat crossing- does not put you off getting in a boat then why should a hotel put your off ?
Rwanda was never a deterrent^
I did see someone getting interviewed in France, who said it was a deterrent.
I assumed then, it is a deterrent?
What surprises me, is the difference a few months makes.
When a thread was started on here, a few months ago, the replies then seem to be quite different to now.
Back then, cant remember what I said personally, but I didnt think the idea had legs at all.
And now see where we all are.
^ With hindsight he was right about the challenges of asylum, and he was right about the need for ID cards as well.^
He set in motion/changed things, without having all his ducks in a row so to speak.
Like starting a building, and not being able to get the right roof.
Not a good idea at all.
If the chance of death - how many have died in the boat crossing- does not put you off getting in a boat then why should a hotel put your off ?
Rwanda was never a deterrent
Why can't countries monitor the sales of boats and the storage facilities . Who is making money from dinghy sales ? and who is storing these boats?
fancythat
He could never assume that ID cards for example, would have been implemented.
So he should have born that in mind.
I also do not think you can presume his personal attitude or intention to it all.
Unless you are a close relative of his! Or a confidante.
He spoke a lot about it at the time, so it’s fair to assume those were his feelings, he was upfront on most issues? With hindsight he was right about the challenges of asylum, and he was right about the need for ID cards as well.
He could never assume that ID cards for example, would have been implemented.
So he should have born that in mind.
I also do not think you can presume his personal attitude or intention to it all.
Unless you are a close relative of his! Or a confidante.
The outcome of Blair’s approach was not his attitude or intention fancythat. That was because the elements of control he sought to implement to prevent uncontrolled migration were not followed through, for example ID cards.
MaizieD
fancythat
MaizieD ^Tony Blairs derided 'open door' policy was for EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement when more eastern European countries joined the EU. It had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
In which case, who added a law, or amended a law for asylum seekers?
The ECHR?Who added or amended a law for asylum seekers?
Is it riddle time again? I don't know what you are talking about.
Casdon's link seem to point to Tony Blair.
He added or amended several laws on the subject.
Casdon
This explains the Blair approach to migration and asylum well. You have misrepresented his attitude and approach fancythat.
www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair
Well, if I did[and not convinced I did] it was not deliberate.
It seems to me that the link[and I wish I was more bright to understand it easier], confirms what whoever[difficult to scroll back to see who at this point] said
For the UK, Tony Blair's open door policy was a disaster allowing all and sundry to walk in unchecked
fancythat
^MaizieD Tony Blairs derided 'open door' policy was for EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement when more eastern European countries joined the EU. It had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
In which case, who added a law, or amended a law for asylum seekers?
The ECHR?
Who added or amended a law for asylum seekers?
Is it riddle time again? I don't know what you are talking about.
fancythat
Casdon
Look at figure 5 fancythat.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
Labour left office in 2010, at which point there was not an issue with migration. The Tory government could have changed any element of the migration or asylum rules at any point since then, in 14 years.Assuming I am looking at the right graph, I dont get the blue and black lines.
The key is on each line, so it shows ebbs and flows in the different categories over time.
This explains the Blair approach to migration and asylum well. You have misrepresented his attitude and approach fancythat.
www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair
Casdon
Look at figure 5 fancythat.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
Labour left office in 2010, at which point there was not an issue with migration. The Tory government could have changed any element of the migration or asylum rules at any point since then, in 14 years.
Assuming I am looking at the right graph, I dont get the blue and black lines.
Casdon
Look at figure 5 fancythat.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
Labour left office in 2010, at which point there was not an issue with migration. The Tory government could have changed any element of the migration or asylum rules at any point since then, in 14 years.
I appreciate The Tory governement could have? Maybe/
But again, thwarted by ECHR?
MaizieD ^Tony Blairs derided 'open door' policy was for EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement when more eastern European countries joined the EU. It had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
In which case, who added a law, or amended a law for asylum seekers?
The ECHR?
Tony Blairs derided 'open door' policy was for EU citizens exercising their freedom of movement when more eastern European countries joined the EU. It had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
Unfortunately, the hard of thinking who voted to leave the EU seemed to think that doing so would stop the asylum seekers....
Look at figure 5 fancythat.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
Labour left office in 2010, at which point there was not an issue with migration. The Tory government could have changed any element of the migration or asylum rules at any point since then, in 14 years.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »