To ask what you think about Starmer’s plan to stop the boats?

[WhereIsMyJumper]

I cannot see how his ‘one in one out’ plan is going to help. I also can’t understand why France is cooperating with us. What’s the incentive?

If you don’t agree with this plan, what would your answer be?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg6x4g6gg6t

Clearly, is there? You have statistics for that? There has been a continual rise in reporting for about 20 years now, with steeper increases after high profile cases, but it is thought the rising numbers of reports bears no correlation to the number of actual cases. The percentage of women who say they would or have reported an assault, has also risen in that same time period. The profile of the majority of perpetrators is white male.

I am a higher rate taxpayer (which costs me more in Scotland than it would in England). I do use public services, have done for over 50 years. There have been times when it was harder to get, say, doctor/dentist appointments than it is now, and there have been times when it was easier. Those changes have been nothing to do with immigration.

I have a child who will need a home one day. The fact she is disabled and there are so few properties suitable for her is a far bigger barrier than immigration numbers. When I was at University in the 90s my economics lecturer did a session about how much harder it would be for my generation to get on the property market and how that would continue to increase for future generations. Fair to say the issues with young people getting on the property ladder have very little to do with immigration.

''@MiloMinderbinder925 · Today 08:59

You are on cloud cuckoo land if you think you can just dump people in other countries.''

If you have to rely on petty comments like that you have already lost your argument.

Returning a boat full of illegal immigrants that has left France to get into English water is not 'dumping people in other countries', it is simply returning them to where they travelled from.

What is the safe legal route to the U.K. for someone coming from e.g Syria via France to seek asylum?

French report.

"It will make the situation worse": for Xavier Bertrand, the new migration agreement between France and the United Kingdom is "bad"

This Friday morning, the president of the Hauts-de-France region returned to the announcement of the implementation of a new migration agreement between France and the United Kingdom, providing for the interception of boats at sea, and their return to France."As it stands today, as it is presented, this agreement is a bad agreement for France."

This Friday, Xavier Bertrand, president of the Hauts-de-France region, spoke on BFMTV about the announcement of the signing of a new Franco-British migration agreement to try to stop migrant crossings in the Channel, "which has become a marine cemetery".Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have indeed announced that an "exceptional pilot project" will be set up with migrant boats "arrested and then quickly sent back to France".

A system that would lead to the interception of "small boats" in deep waters with a "one-for-one" principle: for each return to France of a migrant arriving in the United Kingdom by the Channel, London undertakes to accept a migrant who is in France and expresses its willingness, via an online platform, to settle in the United Kingdom and justify links with this country, explains AFP.

This agreement still needs to be submitted to the European Commission before being signed.

"Choosing your migrants"
"An agreement in principle to test its deterrent effect" in the words of Emmanuel Macron, who absolutely did not suit the president of the Hauts-de-France region this Friday morning.

This principle of "one for one" is a way for the British to "choose their migrants" for the LR elected official. "They will have immigration chosen and we will have immigration suffered," he sums up, accusing Britain of treating France "like a subcontractor".

He wants a "complete overhaul of the Le Touquet agreements", to engage in "a real tug-of-war" with the country across the Channel and for a solution to be found at the European level.

He also said that he intended to write to the Minister of the Interior Bruno Retailleau to make his point of view heard. "With Natacha Bouchart (LR mayor of Calais), with the mayors of the coast, we are going to write to [her], so that we can tell her very clearly that it is not possible," he explains.

You're perfectly aware that it's not illegal to enter a country to claim asylum and asylum seekers can make a claim in any country. Repeating something over and over again, doesn't make it factually correct.

46% on first application. The vast majority of those who are rejected, are granted on appeal.

Why do they want to come here over the other wealthy EU countries they cross?

We offer from free slap up meals a day, mobile phones, free English lessons, housing, access to our welfare system, driving lessons/trip out (for some) protection etc. I bet these other countries are not offering them such luxury. Why can’t we stop this? House them in detention centres until they all processed and we know they are safe. They could be from anywhere with terrorists intentions.

They are NOT genuine asylum seekers.

They also know, once they are in...they are in, we cannot deport them as we approve most applications because our courts will let anyone stay for any reason.

I just feel that if I never hear about “immigration” and “Brexit(EU)” in the same sentence again......

I don't know who started this nonsense about not being able to control immigration because we're not in the EU but most of the world is not in the EU.

Do we see China or the US saying "well if we had only joined the EU we'd have a say on criminals entering our country."

The US just stemmed the tide and would be doing better still if there were not Americans supporting the criminals.

There are many ways to stop it.

Firstly by ensuring there is no upside to trying it.

Arrest and detention until deportation. We can set up tents inside a fence since it will only be briefly. Currently we offer a big reward to anyone trying.

If need be we could also turn the boats around. If we blocked the path of one boat until they turned back how many more would try it? There's bound to be a second best scam in Europe.

The French won't take them back. Therefore you are trying to dump people in another country without their permission. If the French would take them back, they'd already be doing it. Hence cloud cuckoo land.

This is the obvious answer but they won't do it!

What's our leverage here though? I mean... I'm sure that not paying the French is REALLY going to incentivise to do more on their own soil... Right... If this goes on, what might happen is that France will go 'fine, your territory, not our monkeys' and they will graciously hand us back our borders. Just like we want. Probably even actually encourage the asylum seekers that THEY don't want on their soil any more than we do (Reform's French equivalent is hot on the heels of Macron's party by the way). And then what? They all get here for sure and we STILL need to process them - once they're already on UK soil. We're an island. Where are they going to go from here? Any scheme like the Rwanda one is prohibitively expensive. I'm leaving aside the human rights argument here.
Basically, I know French-bashing has been a national sport for a millennium or so, but in this case the 'let's get tough' rhetoric is incredibly short-sighted.
And we also need to get a grip on the black economy in the UK as that's the real incentive - much more than our benefits.

Ok but I was responding to the PP not a higher rate taxpayer in Scotland who may not experience the issues I was asking about. You could presumably buy your way out of many situations. I'm sorry to hear about your daughter.

I think women's genuine concerns should be taken into consideration. I don't know how you get stats other than a nationwide survey asking the question "do illegal male immigrants make you feel unsafe"..which I suspect wouldn't be allowed.

Rochdale etc shows the danger of ignoring what is happening to ordinary people and what they are experiencing.

I'm pleased if you are a woman and haven't experienced any increased feeling of vulnerability in the last few years. Scotland sounds a lot safer.

We probably need ID cards. Which I've always objected to.

I don’t live in Scotland and the only thing that’s made me feel unsafe recently is the encampment of white, British homeless men that’s appeared on one of my usual dog walks.

I love the tone of all your posts.

So asylum shopping?

Do tell us how? No one has managed it yet in years and Brexit has made it worse. Nigel won’t be able to either despite his posturing.

I will admit I’m not sure what the answer is and I’m older and this has been an endless discussion without solution for as long as I can remember.,

It dorsnt matter whether its realistic. Thats not my point. My point is that people are feeling squeezed and and Reform haven't let them down yet.

People didn't vote Labour in - they voted Conservative out. People won't vote Reform in, they will vote the same way many did for Brexit - frustration.

So when a migrant boat capsizes, which it would do, do we rescue those in the water or not?
If we do, what happens to these people and wouldn't that undermine your solution?

Tented Camps? food, sanitation, security... all would have to be over come, you'd also need a great many, there are 10s of 1000s in hotels atm.... i cannot see many people living nearby being happy about this.

Agree. Look at the countries who have been successful. No EU

You read it somewhere? A meme on Facebook by any chance?

Illegal immigrants can’t claim anything at all (clue is in the name). Asylum seekers have the same access to NHS services as you have. If you are on a low income, you can have free eye tests, and have a voucher which covers the cost of glasses. The same is true of dental care.

We need to declare a STATE OF EMERGENCY and bring in the British forces.

Turn the boats around and drag them back to France. It would only need doing for a week or so to break the traffickers model.
Once the model is broken migrants will realise they have to settle anywhere thats safe, not a choice of one destination.

Or purloin the Eurostar, ship them direct from Dover onto trains and dump them on French soil. Armed guards at every train door to prevent escapees. Much like the Eastern block countries did as we were traversing through on a train. Guards at every door to stop westerners escaping into the east.

We cannot keep paying for undocumented illegal men to continue invading our country. "Irregular migration"....my arse!

We aren't a country if we dont have borders. The Government are complicit. Starmer is a globalist....he prefers Davos to Westminster.

He doesn't care about the UK, he's sold us down the river so many times already, its plain for all to see.

The women of this country are being sacrificed on the alter of diversity.

Well how do all the other countries in the world do it? They seem to be able to. How does Japan do it for example (I have no idea btw). Let's copy the one we like.

"Out of interest should we have housed Ukrainian refugees?" Ukrainians are dying - not dying for a takeaway and a free home.

Also Ukraine sends women and children for the most part. Any man able to fight is required to stay. You may recall the fuss when the transwomen tried to leave.

the U.K. has a legal duty to look after refugees, There is no legal duty to look after people breaking into your house or your country. Even the 1951 Refugee Convention only allowed for illegal entry into a country when fleeing immediate danger. Fleeing France doesn't count.

The fact that other refugees also arrive here is not a reason at allow illegals.

People come into my house when invited, but that doesn't mean I have to leave the front door unlocked.

What you're saying is that people will vote, herd like, for something new without giving it any thought.

Agree