Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder if there'll be a revolt?

526 replies

TreatTreat · 09/07/2025 21:21

In the country that's stretched to its limits, today it was announced that Keir has agreed with Mr Macron that just 50 illegal migrants per week will be sent away.

I know so many people are totally fed up with the state of the country.

Will there be protests?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Pennyforyourthoughtsplease · 03/08/2025 09:03

People are too lazy. There should really be one about the CoL and how we got into this mess

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:21

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/the-truth-about-asylum/

The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:25

No one has to withdraw to implement secure border control.

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:37

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:25

No one has to withdraw to implement secure border control.

Provide safe and legal routes.

But those who are anti-immigration won't be happy to provide asylum seekers with a safe route.

I know you are aware of this but for those who are not

Refugees can only apply for asylum on British soil and there are no safe and legal routes for the majority of refugees. That is why they risk their lives on a small boat in a dangerous and busy shipping channel

MyNameIsX · 03/08/2025 09:40

MsJinks · 03/08/2025 08:53

@MyNameIsX- ok it doesn’t specifically say you can choose ‘safe for you’ but there are 2 parts that effectively do say this. The UNCHR uphold the right of safety for humans everywhere, or freedom from certain types of fear/persecution. Then there is the choice within international law as to where to seek refuge - specifically you will have no penalty for entering irregularly to seek refuge in any country that is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention / the 1967 protocol. People will have a right to seek asylum in that country and have their claim heard and if accepted the right to remain with the freedom of that territory. This will not necessarily be the first country they reach after leaving their home country, or the first country that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, but it will be one where they can be safe and one signed up to the Refugee Convention - simply put they ‘choose’ and can ‘choose’ to an extent the country in which they are safe. There are restrictions, but just passing through another country is not one of them.
This has been debated, reviewed and discussed in many arenas and areas, and was established for the U.K. in R v Uxbridge, though this was moderated lately the principle still holds weight here. Similarly other countries have looked at it and the EU try to take a whole EU approach at times.
It was recently discussed re Ukrainian refugees in the EU, who otherwise would have had to stay in Poland for example.

That’s not what you said though, is it?

Less charitable people would say that you bent things to fit your narrative. You were called out, and semi-fessed up.

Now I cannot trust a word you say.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:42

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:37

Provide safe and legal routes.

But those who are anti-immigration won't be happy to provide asylum seekers with a safe route.

I know you are aware of this but for those who are not

Refugees can only apply for asylum on British soil and there are no safe and legal routes for the majority of refugees. That is why they risk their lives on a small boat in a dangerous and busy shipping channel

Show quote history

No one will offer safe and legal routes as you can’t meet the demand. If you cap it there will be ways to get in under international law. If you don’t then the demand is very high.

Surely this is understood by most by now.

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:47

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:42

No one will offer safe and legal routes as you can’t meet the demand. If you cap it there will be ways to get in under international law. If you don’t then the demand is very high.

Surely this is understood by most by now.

Show quote history

So the boats keep coming and people keep dying.

The UK will need to take their share of asylum seekers as it has always done.

MyNameIsX · 03/08/2025 09:49

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:47

So the boats keep coming and people keep dying.

The UK will need to take their share of asylum seekers as it has always done.

Show quote history

And the people in the UK will simply need to cover the costs, whether they like it or not. Tough.

Tax, social cohesion, housing, schooling - all must be sacrificed at the altar.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:52

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:47

So the boats keep coming and people keep dying.

The UK will need to take their share of asylum seekers as it has always done.

Show quote history

Actually no not if a new system is put in place. Look to where boats have stopped and people aren’t dying. They still have humanitarian programmes though and / or quotas.

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:52

Yes it is tough to treating people in a humanitarian way.

Fix the asylum system rather than scapegoating people seeking safety

Glitchymn1 · 03/08/2025 09:54

MyNameIsX · 03/08/2025 09:49

And the people in the UK will simply need to cover the costs, whether they like it or not. Tough.

Tax, social cohesion, housing, schooling - all must be sacrificed at the altar.

Show quote history

You sound gleeful.

The state of the U.K. - God help us.

BIossomtoes · 03/08/2025 09:57

There’s a lot of glee around. It’s almost as if some people want the country to fare badly.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 09:59

DuncinToffee · 03/08/2025 09:52

Yes it is tough to treating people in a humanitarian way.

Fix the asylum system rather than scapegoating people seeking safety

Yes fix the system. It’s not a good one. People at risk, exploited en route, traffickers making vast profits, insecure, unvetted and chaos. Riot gear on French beaches and people drowning on the way.

People just can’t see past this version for some reason. And no it’s not just replace with safe routes for reason below.

Julen7 · 03/08/2025 10:09

BIossomtoes · 03/08/2025 09:57

There’s a lot of glee around. It’s almost as if some people want the country to fare badly.

Glee? I think the majority are in a state that veers between utter frustration and total despair.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 10:12

Julen7 · 03/08/2025 10:09

Glee? I think the majority are in a state that veers between utter frustration and total despair.

Show quote history

Yep. I think the Labour mn take that it’s going so well is dwindling. People are more despair, frustration and anger.

MsJinks · 03/08/2025 10:26

Australia do have to accept asylum claims - some of the U.K. seem to think Oz has a distinctly superior immigration system with no issues, but it’s not so different in many ways - eg most of uk legal routes have been points based all along whatever you ‘hear’. They take around 20k on safe and legal routes, as U.K. does.
They have asylum claims from previously legal entrants and they have irregular entrants by boats which sometimes they turn back but also have off shored, with great debate and pushback, and they have previously ‘administratively’ detained refugees but their high court recently ruled that indefinite detention was not lawful and this is (slowly) being stopped. Off shoring is the biggest difference between Oz and U.K. but is not ideal and is heavily criticised itself. Though I do think they are perhaps more focussed on removing illegal migrants, mainly overstayers, than the U.K. but that’s a government decision and not overly related to small boat entrants tbh.
Overall Australia has around 0.75% and U.K. just under 1% of refugees.
The biggest issue facing everyone is the number of displaced people - huge - 1/69 being displaced. This, is a global problem, that needs global answers - not going to happen of course but at least we should be humane to humans and support those struggling as we would like to be supported. Also everyone should try and understand the distinction between legal migrants, illegal migrants and refugees tbh.

ColourThief · 03/08/2025 10:31

LadyKenya · 09/07/2025 21:29

Maybe any revolt should be about the tiny percentage of people, hoarding most of the wealth, that would at least make sense. I won't hold my breath though.

Exactly this!
I’ve been saying this for years, infact I even had a conversation with my mum about it yesterday when she went on her daily immigrant rant.

It’s so depressing to see everyone taking the bait instead of focusing their anger where it should actually be focused.

Punch up, not down.
It’s not that hard.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 10:32

MsJinks · 03/08/2025 10:26

Australia do have to accept asylum claims - some of the U.K. seem to think Oz has a distinctly superior immigration system with no issues, but it’s not so different in many ways - eg most of uk legal routes have been points based all along whatever you ‘hear’. They take around 20k on safe and legal routes, as U.K. does.
They have asylum claims from previously legal entrants and they have irregular entrants by boats which sometimes they turn back but also have off shored, with great debate and pushback, and they have previously ‘administratively’ detained refugees but their high court recently ruled that indefinite detention was not lawful and this is (slowly) being stopped. Off shoring is the biggest difference between Oz and U.K. but is not ideal and is heavily criticised itself. Though I do think they are perhaps more focussed on removing illegal migrants, mainly overstayers, than the U.K. but that’s a government decision and not overly related to small boat entrants tbh.
Overall Australia has around 0.75% and U.K. just under 1% of refugees.
The biggest issue facing everyone is the number of displaced people - huge - 1/69 being displaced. This, is a global problem, that needs global answers - not going to happen of course but at least we should be humane to humans and support those struggling as we would like to be supported. Also everyone should try and understand the distinction between legal migrants, illegal migrants and refugees tbh.

Yes they have a quota which is a good idea.

They also never let anyone stay if they just arrive to the shore. So if that would be your plan in going where you feel comfortable Aus is not the place to try. You’d end up in detention or elsewhere. Not in Aus.

ColourThief · 03/08/2025 10:35

BallerinaRadio · 09/07/2025 22:58

The rich would love a revolt over this, keep us angry at the boat people so we don't look at them they'll be bloody starting them

Yep, nailed it 👍🏻

FatherFrosty · 03/08/2025 10:39

the answer is to throw money at the problem.
speed up the asylum seeker application process, so they are deported or working. Not hanging about in limbo in hotels. It’s no good for anyone.

for what it’s worth Labour have a better handle on this situation than conservatives have. They’ve deported more in comparable time periods, and have reduced hotel use.

EasternStandard · 03/08/2025 10:41

FatherFrosty · 03/08/2025 10:39

the answer is to throw money at the problem.
speed up the asylum seeker application process, so they are deported or working. Not hanging about in limbo in hotels. It’s no good for anyone.

for what it’s worth Labour have a better handle on this situation than conservatives have. They’ve deported more in comparable time periods, and have reduced hotel use.

They’ve also got higher numbers crossing so no not really a better handle at all.

Julen7 · 03/08/2025 10:52

FatherFrosty · 03/08/2025 10:39

the answer is to throw money at the problem.
speed up the asylum seeker application process, so they are deported or working. Not hanging about in limbo in hotels. It’s no good for anyone.

for what it’s worth Labour have a better handle on this situation than conservatives have. They’ve deported more in comparable time periods, and have reduced hotel use.

There are no figures suggesting they’ve reduced hotel use.

Jennps · 03/08/2025 10:57

MsJinks · 03/08/2025 07:05

‘Safe’ is where the asylum seeker feels safe - they have the right to pass through countries to reach the one they choose - established in the UNCHR and upheld in U.K. case law, which still has some weight in our own immigration rules and laws. And ‘safe’ will also include capability to build a life there.
So many reasons to head for a specific country to rebuild a life such as common language, knowledge of country, relatives/friends etc. I definitely would feel more capable of rebuilding a life in Australia than France for example, which doesn’t mean there are no countries that aren’t safe between the U.K. and Oz.
If you look closely into asylum figures you will find Spain is more attractive to Central American countries, where it is a common language for example. And don’t forget that ‘great time’ when Britain ruled the waves, was the ‘mother’ country in so many places - that leaves some feeling that you’d be able to connect in the U.K. For many Afghans they fought/translated/worked alongside us with promises of safety as well. The list goes on.
That’s not to say controls aren’t necessary but we haven’t helped ourselves there. For example, as we left the EU we can’t now utilise their 3rd country rules and return some to other EU countries, we can’t use Europol to find out more info on some asylum seekers.
As anyone who reads my comments knows I don’t think migration will stop, people have always migrated for a better life and some places of the world are getting less habitable. This needs to be acknowledged and discussed on a wide and international level as how to handle it and support human beings globally - but whilst this won’t happen then local hatred against others is never the answer.

Oh so anyone who doesn’t ‘feel’ safe in any part of the world can pick any other country to live in?

The Batshittery is real.