All illegal 'boat' immigrants could and should be returned to their country of origin.....France (a very safe country). The fact that no politician or media commentator - Left or Right - ever says this obvious thing is testimony to the hugely asymmetric relationship between the British and French establishments. Imagine if it was the other way round!
How do you return them if France won't accept them? Or do you mean put them in boats that won't sink pointed towards the French coast and start the engine? Or (as someone I know suggested) tow their boats round to the French coast in the Bay of Biscay and then let the French authorities deal with them? (Having heard this, I wondered if it made more sense just to tow them to the coast of Libya).
But I digress. As a practical matter, how do you send them to France if France doesn't want them?
My comment was a polemical one, not a draft policy statement - as I'm sure you know. But it is no less valid for that. Two things though:
1) France does send some migrants back to Italy and Spain - and in quantity I believe. It causes friction of course but the French are less precious about that.
2) if French-speaking migrants were arriving in the UK and being trafficked across the Channel to France, does anyone seriously believe that the French would be as limp-wristed about it as us?
Sorry. Was trying to be facetious rather than irritating.
I totally agree that we are limp-wristed about this. But I don't know that the comparisons are apt. I presume the returns to France and Spain are under the Dublin regulations? Or at least could plausibly related to the Dublin regulations. I'd be interested to know if they aren't - can you point me at where I can find out about this?
Part of me would love to see channel migrants just shipped back in the other direction. But I just wonder about the practicality of it. A ship full of illegal migrants would not be allowed to dock. A planeful would not be allowed to land. Presumably then the migrants would need to be deposited on a French beach. But that can't be done by British authorities without crossing into French territorial waters. I don't think it's a good idea to try to force that. Either the British vessel carrying the migrants would be armed, with marines on it, or not. If not, the not-so-limp-wristed French would probably board the thing and turn it around. If it was armed...well we're getting into hostile military action here. I know it sounds outlandish, but I don't think that's on. A mistake is too easy to see.
So then you're left with sticking the migrants in a boat and pointing them at the French shore, pulling out the rudder, and letting them go. Although I suspect the French would turn the boat around and send it back. That said the problem would be solved except for the chaps constantly going between Kent and Calais.
I have actually thought about this question - while firmly believing in my lack of expertise in the area. But I genuinely think we'd be reduced to pushing the boats back to French shore in this fashion. It might well be morally acceptable (not to many, but if the boats were of the unsinkable type previously used by Australians so that no one gets hurt, I can't see the problem). But even if you changed all the laws to allow this, and persuaded somebody actually to move the migrants from their boat to the unsinkable one and then could regularly send them back, I still have a sense of foreboding about the practicality of it.
Interesting stuff. But you're focussing much more on the devil in the details than I intended. My comment - more even than about boat migrants - was about the longstanding asymmetry between our limp-wristed establishment and France's stubborn national chauvinism. (something I wrote about here a while back): https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/englishness-as-a-brand
All illegal 'boat' immigrants could and should be returned to their country of origin.....France (a very safe country). The fact that no politician or media commentator - Left or Right - ever says this obvious thing is testimony to the hugely asymmetric relationship between the British and French establishments. Imagine if it was the other way round!
But Thanks for all the 'Quick Links' by the way.
How do you return them if France won't accept them? Or do you mean put them in boats that won't sink pointed towards the French coast and start the engine? Or (as someone I know suggested) tow their boats round to the French coast in the Bay of Biscay and then let the French authorities deal with them? (Having heard this, I wondered if it made more sense just to tow them to the coast of Libya).
But I digress. As a practical matter, how do you send them to France if France doesn't want them?
My comment was a polemical one, not a draft policy statement - as I'm sure you know. But it is no less valid for that. Two things though:
1) France does send some migrants back to Italy and Spain - and in quantity I believe. It causes friction of course but the French are less precious about that.
2) if French-speaking migrants were arriving in the UK and being trafficked across the Channel to France, does anyone seriously believe that the French would be as limp-wristed about it as us?
Sorry. Was trying to be facetious rather than irritating.
I totally agree that we are limp-wristed about this. But I don't know that the comparisons are apt. I presume the returns to France and Spain are under the Dublin regulations? Or at least could plausibly related to the Dublin regulations. I'd be interested to know if they aren't - can you point me at where I can find out about this?
Part of me would love to see channel migrants just shipped back in the other direction. But I just wonder about the practicality of it. A ship full of illegal migrants would not be allowed to dock. A planeful would not be allowed to land. Presumably then the migrants would need to be deposited on a French beach. But that can't be done by British authorities without crossing into French territorial waters. I don't think it's a good idea to try to force that. Either the British vessel carrying the migrants would be armed, with marines on it, or not. If not, the not-so-limp-wristed French would probably board the thing and turn it around. If it was armed...well we're getting into hostile military action here. I know it sounds outlandish, but I don't think that's on. A mistake is too easy to see.
So then you're left with sticking the migrants in a boat and pointing them at the French shore, pulling out the rudder, and letting them go. Although I suspect the French would turn the boat around and send it back. That said the problem would be solved except for the chaps constantly going between Kent and Calais.
I have actually thought about this question - while firmly believing in my lack of expertise in the area. But I genuinely think we'd be reduced to pushing the boats back to French shore in this fashion. It might well be morally acceptable (not to many, but if the boats were of the unsinkable type previously used by Australians so that no one gets hurt, I can't see the problem). But even if you changed all the laws to allow this, and persuaded somebody actually to move the migrants from their boat to the unsinkable one and then could regularly send them back, I still have a sense of foreboding about the practicality of it.
Interesting stuff. But you're focussing much more on the devil in the details than I intended. My comment - more even than about boat migrants - was about the longstanding asymmetry between our limp-wristed establishment and France's stubborn national chauvinism. (something I wrote about here a while back): https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/englishness-as-a-brand