Stopping the boats.

[Scenicgirl]

Honest question.
When Rishi Sunak announced the promise to tackle Channel migrant crossings as one of his five key pledges at the beginning of 2023, and subsequently failed and Keir Starmer appearing not to be concerned about the numbers arriving daily, when other EU countries have taken a much sterner stance sending a clear message, why can't we stop/pause the boats?

Well mainly because what politicians say and actually want regarding immigration is not the same thing. From Blair, through Cameron and finally Sunak, all were lying.

Specifically regarding migrants crossing the channel on boats, we can't just send them back to France because we left the EU (hilariously because people were pissed off with levels of immigration). Other EU countries are starting to talk tough, fair enough because that's what their electorates seem to want, but are basically just arguing about how migrants are shared between EU countries once already there. Although the EU does have pretty grubby deals with places like Libya to try to stop boats leaving and/or tow them back so total numbers have fallen quite sharply.

..,because they leave from another country (France), and we can’t storm their beaches, and start popping boats.

Pre-Brexit we had a better arrangement in place, where we were able to return people to the safe county they cane through .. an arrangement that no longer exists. So people making the crossing know that we can’t just send them back to France

How we fix it .. closer working with European Partners, which given the anti-EU Rhetoric from the last few years might be difficult.

Because “stop the boats” is undeliverable rhetoric aimed at the lowest common denominator. A meaningless “vote winner” that sounds all tough but is totally meaningless.

They can’t stop the boats. They could probably reduce the number. They could have a robust, efficient system for processing applications for asylum, and removing those who aren’t genuine, whilst treating everyone with a bit of dignity. They could probably work out a system of safe routes to avoid people drowning and putting money in the hands of criminal gangs.

But why put in place a system that works and enjoys the confidence of the public, when they can come out with meaningless soundbites?

The only way to stop people risking their lives in the channel is by providing a safe route to asylum. But nobody wants to talk about that 🙄

They probably could stop the boats if we were able to find and train a megalodon

how do you stop the boats ?
which eu countries do you refer to?
im from Spain , boats keep arriving every week , with more people dying in Spain whilst attempting it ( uk 45 in total this year vs Spain 18 a day in 2023). I’d say Italy and Greece see similar numbers to Spain.

I think it’s a political speech to try and get votes rather than the reality.

Genuine question @Scenicgirl - how do you 'pause' the boats? What exactly do you think it is the government should be doing?

Leaving aside all the legal issues for a second (that people have a right to seek asylum in the UK) what do you think they should do - build a wall across the sea? Storm the beaches of France? Ban the sale of dinghys worldwide?

The only way to stop people risking their life to get to the UK, is to ensure that the life they are leaving is worth more. Can you imagine how desperate you must have to be to leave your family, risk your life and pay your life savings to people smugglers to come to the UK to be treated like third class citizens.

HelenHen · Today 22:29
**
The only way to stop people risking their lives in the channel is by providing a safe route to asylum. But nobody wants to talk about that 🙄

This ^. The small boats could end overnight if the political will were there. It isn’t.

The only way to stop people risking their lives in the channel is by providing a safe route to asylum. But nobody wants to talk about that

People do talk about that. The point being France is a safe country and all the other countries they’ve been through.

Id stop the freebies - make the process shorter and allow people to work so they aren’t claiming benefits and hanging round towns - give them a purpose.

Give them proper guidelines in applying in the right way.

There’s a criminal underclass to the whole process, which is wrong.

What is "the right way" in your opinion?

Processing those already here and either granting asylum or deporting them back from wence they came would also help. As would stopping 'losing' people in the country. This is on all immigration, not just boats.
I think we are seen as a better country than we actually are as well. I also agree with stopping people being stuck in limbo while awaiting a decision. Especially those with professions that we desperately need.

I’d stop the freebies.

asylum seekers earn £37/week. Don’t think they really come for the freebies

Who are you to say that france is safe for them though, or that they have no reason to specifically come here instead? Perhaps they have family here? Or English is their 2nd language, not French... there are many reasons!

Many countries offer some kind of support to displaced arrivals, aka 'freebies'. You can't just let people die!

And yes I agree that integration is essential.

Desperate to cross the channel on a small boat to flee Western Europe - Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands?

Seriously?

It's very difficult. If we didn't interfere in other countries, then people wouldn't flee them, see Afghanistan and Iran for example. If we all worked together on global warming, people wouldn't be escaping flooding and intense heat.

If the West wasn't exploiting developing countries, then they would have better economies.

France refuses to take back the boats or stop them once they've set off. We can continue to work with France and the rest of Europe to help stop the smuggling networks. We can invest in the system and process claims quicker but it's difficult to send people back to their countries if they don't have documentation.

@NumberNotRecognised to reach places where they may have family links, familiarity with the culture, or be able to speak the language?

Or do you suggest that people should only go to their immediate neighbouring country?

Why would they risk their lives, and more importantly their children’s lives, to join family here (family could apply for reunification through the official channels) because they can speak English and don’t fancy learning French?

They are no more in danger in France or the other European countries they travelled through to get there than they would be in the UK.

AFAIK, there's a few reasons why people use the boats:

1. No legal option. I doubt anyone sane would choose a dingy if they could get a visa in their home country.
2. Easier to get work in black/grey market. We could fix this with ID cards.
3. More people speak English than, say French or German.
4. They have family here.

Now, we could change some of the pull factors (e.g.illegal work), but short of shooting people on the beach, you can't change them all. What we can do is make the asylum process fast, fair and transparent. Ditto the way we set & select for visas.

We already do a huge amount to stop them. Numbers would be a lot higher without the interventions.

Some repeats of the usual nonsense on here. No. Brexit is nothing to do with it. The Dublin agreement returned tiny numbers and we took more in than we returned.
Safe routes for asylum? There are tens of millions wanting to travel and if they don’t get a visa or whatever they will travel anyway. It’s an accepted and visible choice for people in poorer countries. A huge proportion of young men in many countries now consider travelling in this way.

Making whatever new legislation is pretty irrelevant while we still abide by the international asylum laws. People can generally avoid detention and removal unless they commit serious crimes.

People will do what people have always done. Travel for a better life. It’s how the US and Australia etc got built. The boats will never stop while some people choose the UK over other European countries (or need another go at asylum when they’ve failed in other countries) it’s a lucrative business now.

Eventually we will run out of expensive temporary accommodation and need to start camps.

The thing that annoys me about the defenders of the asylum seekers is that they don’t recognise that these young economic migrants are sucking up any capacity, accommodation, funding and goodwill so genuine refugees don’t get a look in.
We can’t bring in women and children from Sudan or Afghanistan while the system is choked up with Pakistani and Albanian men here to earn money.

It was an honest question open for debate, not sarky comments but begs the question, having come so far and passing through Spain, Italy, France etc why do the the extra leg to reach GB in dangerous conditions?

France had offered to set up a centre there to process applications from asylum seekers. During the Tory government. Not sure why we can’t take them up on it - surely it was a better idea that the Rwanda one. However it’s done, we need to stop them coming.

Which “freebies” would they be, @Silvertulips ?

Why do they want to come here? Has anyone asked them?

About the time the French destroyed the "jungle " near Calais, I was attending a "français pour étrangers" class 2 mornings a week. (Small town, 4 hours south of Paris).

About 2 dozen young men were relocated to the town and were sent for compulsory language classes. They were split into several groups and some were in the same as me.
I asked them - why not stay in France, why risk traveling to the uk? They got more cash in France, more learning opportunities.
There were several answers-
They all believed they would get more money, be given a house and a car and that English girls would marry them, then they would be able to bring the rest of their family (including their wife and kids. This was what the people smugglers had told them and they believed it.

I wonder whether if we had a very mean benefits package that would help? If we only gave the absolute basics. Even France have said that we give too much and the benefits are too much of a pull. Just very basic food, a bed in a shared dorm and nothing more. No ability to claim benefits or use the NHS free for a set number of years. Would getting here be worth the risk?