Stopping the boats is easy...

[titbumwillypoo]

All we have to do is abandon the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, the UN, the G7, NATO and the WTO. Then we can break maritime law and start sinking the boats. Obviously we'd have to proscribe the RNLI and change the job description of the coast guard to encourage people who want to sink boats to sign up. The fishermen will be fine.
Once we start with this deterrent we can start kicking out other undesirables. I'd start with the students. Coming over here using our universities as a gateway to benefits street. So we ban them, no more student visas. We might see a few universities close but no great loss, you learn more in the school of life.
After that take away access to ALL benefits for anyone not born here. Don't care if you've always worked and paid your taxes you're not ENGERLISH so less Dr Khalid more Dr Callum.
Obviously once we start making Britain Great again there may be a couple of teensy issues. Food might cost a lot more because the lefty EU might not want to trade with a nation that wants to isolate itself and kill innocent people. It'll be fine because there will be 100% employment because instead of benefits you'll have to do your 60 hours on the food farm to earn your pound credits.
Family will be legally obliged to look after any living relative as there won't be anyone left to do it because we deported them all. And obviously the NHS was full of loony lefties who went round caring for people instead of focusing on what really mattered, which is profit.
They're just a couple of the benefits of stopping the boats, because who cares about the bigger picture or unintended consequences eh?
Giving up our place on the world stage is a small price to pay for stopping a handful of people coming from countries we benefited from or bombed isn't it?

In theory. UK territories are notorious for lenient banking laws. They host the family trusts of many wealthy British families, they host many hedge funds that pay little (if any) corporate tax, thereby increasing returns, etc. David Cameron was caught out by this while in office.

I am also thinking of IHT. The Duke of Westminster, who personally inherited over £9B, is a prime example of someone who paid none owing to a complex arrangement of family trusts.

In theory a trust pays a 6% tax every 10 years. However the Duke’s personal wealth does not count the assets of the Grosvenor Group or extensive farm holdings which are part of the family trust arrangements. The worth of these far surpassed £9B at the time of his inheritance (2015-16); he is the primary beneficiary and titular figurehead; and both are largely exempt from the periodic tax.

I am not particularly interested in one individual. Anyone is allowed to use the law towards their own ends. But a system that permits this kind of thing while so many struggle is broken.

They could have stopped at any safe country along the way and probably found one that spoke their language.
Stop being an apologist for people traffickers.

My response is the same.
You have utterly no comprehension of what some of these people have been through, and what they will do to survive and to help their families.
Did you read Sea Prayer?

Reading comprehension skills?
’a lower rate’ is what I wrote.

Indeed. Let’s have a system that allows refugees to arrive legally.

My point was that it is hardly a deterrent if you are trying to save your family’s life.

Sounds like a plan

I don't care about the % rate. One years worth of tax does more to fund "public services" than a nurse does in their entire working life.

Or just don't allow entry. And send them back to their home country.

You can but you’ll need to end the current system or you’ll just have both.

Plus you’ll need a way to limit demand, unless you say yes to everyone.

I care about the rate, and I think most people do.

This is a fair comment.

In theory it is possible to change to a system where people must apply for asylum from outside the country. However for this to work, many pieces must align. The UK is currently far from achieving this goal.

Save their lives from what exactly, in France?

Why? I'd rather low taxes for everyone. I'd rather a strong economy where people investment

But why extend their journey/suffering/uncertainty/danger/ spending monet by coming across another sea when they are already in a perfectly safe country.

I don't actually expect an answer as ive asked this question many many times on many forums and no one has come up with anything other than "because they can speak English " which to my mind isn't enough of a reason to risk what they do

Shame they can't save their family's lives by picking up a weapon and fighting.

From what? Having to drink decent wine, to have to listen to Johnny Halliday records...what is so bloody dangerous about france that they give some criminal thousands of pounds (which according to many they don't have because they are refugees) to cross to another country

What the multi millionaire son of a diplomat who was educated in some of the best universities in the US

Hmm I guess its not about his lived experience

How would you deal with demand?

The biggest problem with the asylum hotels is the lag time in processing. That must be minimised in a system where people apply externally: the lives of genuine asylum seekers may be in danger if they are stuck in their home countries for long.

Most on this thread claim to have no problem with genuine asylum seekers, only with economic poseurs. Let them make external applications and quickly be turned away. Fraudulent successful claims are rather rare.

When is the last time, anywhere in the world, that this resulted in a thriving economy? With data, please.

You sound like Donald Trump. Unfortunately the US debt has just passed $40T.

Ok but how would you deal with the high numbers of applications?

Ceuta was pretty close to a legal route, granted it was not correct but it shows numbers and demand, even if only for a day or two.

So can you say what process you’d put in place o/s to deal with similar?

Funnily enough before COVID, the US economy was absolutely booming and thriving.

Most of those at Ceuta were not considered to be in a position to make valid asylum claims, is that not correct?

If people must submit from abroad, the argument is that those without adequate documentation will be rejected, as they would if they were here. But they won’t be in the UK so the dilemma of whether deporting them violates their human rights does not arise. They don’t need to be housed and fed - or ‘fed’ - while a decision is being made.

Any surge in demand will increase workload for those who deal with asylum cases but this will be behind the scenes. In theory, outcomes are not affected.

I have doubts about how this works in practice, mainly around the safety and security of genuine asylum seekers. I don’t see the relevance of Ceuta as the point of external applications is keeping applicants off British soil.

Do you mean people just send in forms from o/s?

So someone in Sudan fills out a form that is received online in the U.K. and waits where they are?

I’m not actually sure what you are describing so maybe if you say the mechanism it would become clearer on how it would work