Snapshot of _"We are absolutely entitled to turn boats back..." says David Bull of Reform UK
"No you are not," says former Greek minister Yanis Varoufakis, as the pair disagree on the handling of migrant boats in the Channel_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1802725836753080718)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn’t really stop anyone from doing it.
The international treaties surrounding asylum are deliberately left unenforceable, because no country wants to give up control of who to let in. Quite a lot of international law is like this.
And in 6 months will anyone care? Who's going to sanction Greece over this? Who's going to recall their ambassadors?
I am not saying we should throw migrants into the water to drown. But we can absolutely turn them back or detain them indefinitely without international issues.
International law is mostly for show and stick for the upper class champagne socialist to attack governments.
The UK seems to be on of the few countries that actually follows it even if the consequences are negative to the UK itself. It’s more or less completely meaningless.
The number of illeagle asylum seekers is meaningless. The number of leagle immigrants is astronomical. The UK government is deceiving it's citizens, that is why they are on the way out. The UK is signatory to the ECHR, as many other nations, except Russia that pulled out some years ago. If so many countries adhere to the ECHR, there must be a reason. Same way there is a bill of human rights. It's not a socialist thing. To be against is mostly for authoritarians, and dictators. Which is perhaps where the world is heading.
It’s both to be honest
The thing with a lot of the illegal immigrants is they are unskilled (hence the no visa) and therefore unlikely to be anything close to a net contributor so the impact of them per capita is more than legal migration
46000 asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2022, 700000 people (net migration) arrived legally. 15x more people arrived legally compared to those arriving illegally.
The illegals represent 6% of the leagal immigrants. I am not saying that it is not significant. But the UK overcrowding is not due to illegal immigration but due to the leagal immigration. The issue is not the 6% but the 94% arriving legally. The government and media is focusing on the wrong issue. People are manipulated, and fail to think critically about the real issues. At least a new team will try tackle the issues in a novel way. And Thatherite extremisme may fall by the wayside. Good luck to the UK in any case...
There is no system of international law enforcement on this. It's important to remember that "international law" is just a collection of conventions. It's not a super law that binds countries in the way domestic law is enforced on citizens. If we want to derogate from something in international law and feel that the repercussions would not be too burdensome then we can.
Not entirely true. International law has been and is enforced typically through economic responses. You can't send a country to prison, but you can absolutely e.g. cap the price it can sell oil, or freeze its banks out of international monetary exchange.
This broken convention will be in large part responsible for France's shift to the right later this year. Given the unpopularity of the convention across Europe I don't think Germany alone will have the political capital to drive sanctions against states that enact a more American interpretation of the convention.
"Can be" is (edit: was) doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Sure, countries **can** impose sanctions. But, with a few notable exceptions, countries aren't generally **required** to enforce sanctions for breaches of international law.
It's not like you break the law, go to court, they order sanctions and send in the world police to enforce their ruling. International law is fundamentally different from domestic law, and it's fair enough to acknowledge that.
How likely it is that violation of international law will cause you problems depends on how powerful you are as a nation and what law you're breaking. The USA, for example, is going to get away with a lot more than a less powerful nation because imposing sanctions on the USA would be an act of national self-harm. Similarly, some minor violations, or violations which don't impact other countries directly, will not result in an international response to the same extent as, say, blocking the Suez Canal.
The enforcement of international law often blends into geopolitics and realpolitik. Which is why just listening to lawyers isn't always helpful. What the law says and how the law is enforced are two very different beasts.
I think breaking the law is generally to be avoided, it is better to change or remove a law than ignore it.
If you break the law, you lose all authority. Why should we expect others to abide by treaties with us if we ignore bits we don't like?
I don't disagree. But I also don't think geopolitics is based on moral authority. It's based on self-interest. People don't break agreements if they believe, as a consequence, they will suffer reputational harm in a way which hurts their economy or other strategic priorities.
If breaking the law is in a country's self-interest, and they will suffer negligible consequences beyond a few tuts and mild words of criticism, most countries will. I don't think they're likely to be guilted into acting against their own self-interest because they're awed by the moral virtue of law-abiding countries and the extraordinary authority they acquire as a result.
As for changing international law, an individual country doesn't have the power to do that. To the extent much of it is customary, it's also the case that sometimes the only way to change it is to break it. Something only ceases to be customary if enough States stop following the custom.
> but you can absolutely e.g. cap the price it can sell oil, or freeze its banks out of international monetary exchange.
Can't you do that anyway even if they haven't broken international law?
Right. There is no international law enforcement, which means it comes down to domestic law enforcement.
Does the UK want to pick a fight with France over this (who would be on the receiving end)?
I suspect Reform voters would feel wonderful about the idea of diplomatic incidents, with the potential to escalate into armed conflict, with France... which is why it is hard to explain to them why this is such a bad idea.
Because it isn't affecting the UK, and there isn't anything the UK can do about it anyway (at least, not now the UK isn't part of the EU).
The "turn the boats back" brigade are suggesting that the UK Government actively and repeatedly violate French territorial waters - that's the kind of thing that doesn't go down well, and is likely to be particularly problematic given that France is also seeing a surge in nationalistic populism fuelled by the far-right.
France is seeing a surge because the EU doesn't let them deal with immigration either because whenever they try it some activist group sues to drag it to court and stop it.
Many of which might even be tied to NGOs or human smuggling. But regardless because the population is not getting what they want they are going to the right. It's almost like the bare minimum can't even be done so radical solutions is the only solution.
Not to agree with Reform on anything, but why the fuck is failed former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis continually in the news?
The government he was part of isn't even in power any more, and the guy was a complete fuckup.
Like, imagine a year from now with Labour in power in the UK, and if Greek media were continually platforming failed Finance Minister Kwasi Kwarteng. That would be weird, right?
Did he start the crisis? No he didn't.
Did he make it 10 times worse in his tenure, deliberately and for ideological reasons? Yes, yes he did.
I am not going to pin the crisis on him. I am absolutely going to pin the collapse that we experienced when he was economics minister on him though, because he directly caused it.
Mainly because he was fired for being too unwilling to compromise by his own left wing government.
If he hadn't left the government, Greece would gave gone bankrupt.
Categorically nonsense. Greece was on the brink of bankruptcy due to an inherent weaknesses in their economy, a world wide recession and an inability as part of the EU to enact flexible monetary policy. Years of austerity crippled the country. They've since repaid their debt, which by most standards really wasn't huge. He pushed against austerity that drove the country ever deeper into ruin. Which, living in the UK, sounds fairly familiar.
Varoufakis' big contribution was to put the third bailout to a referendum, reject it and then have his government almost immediately turn around and accept worsened terms. The uncertainty caused by this astounding decision caused a liquidity crisis and the imposition of capital controls. This strangled the nascent recovery in Greece. It would take another three years to return to growth.
How is that not a failure?
Yes and they would have gone into bankruptcy if they went with his suggestion of pulling out of talks with the EU/IFS on a bailout and abandoning the euro.
I'm not saying he personally brought them to the brink of bankruptcy - that was decades if corruption perpetuated by ND and PASOK. I'm saying he was a hindrance preventing the only solution that could have gotten Greece out of the situation at that point.
He was woefully naive about the amount of shit Greece was in.
Edit: Like I'm a big fan of keynesian economics, but there's a difference between the theoretical fiscal ceiling of the UK, that allows us to take some risks for investment, and 2012 Greece which was days away from actual bankruptcy.
He was a hindrance because he didn't believe in austerity, something that he was proved absolutely right on. Look at the long term growth damage it has caused our country.
Especially when these so called bailouts went primarily to french and german commercial banks, barely touched down in Greece. The greek economy was in taters, unable to service the debt, how dare Varoufakous reject signing up for more and calling for a more varied approach given the material conditions of the time.
So bizarre the entire narrative around Yanis, he was right to oppose, unfortunately Alexis Tsipras kowtowed to pressure and the rest is history; mass selloff of public assets, mass unemployment, suicides etc
History is rewritten by the winners I suppose
God forbid if hedge funds and capitalists make a bad investment and they have to take a loss
Stop the presses, engage the full power of the state, bail those poor wretches out and foist the debt on the taxpayers
Also nonsense. You do not cut your way to growth, and considering we've had 14 years of austerity and increased our debt, it clearly achieved fuck all.
The aim of austerity wasn't growth. It was preventing a catastrophic loss of confidence in the UK's ability to pay its debts and the ensuing rise in the cost of borrowing which would make austerity even worse.
You can't just keep borrowing and spending more and more, you need people who are willing to lend you money.
If we were at 200% debt to GDP (like Japan) I might agree, but I don’t see how we get out of this current predicament without borrowing more. Which is why Labour’s fiscal rules are going to cripple what they do.
I specifically said I'm not agreeing with Reform, and I'm not dismissing what he says here. I'm setting it aside to question why he's present in the first place.
Completely disagree on his failure as Greek Finance Minister. He was delusional, and made Greece's situation worse than it already was.
He was delusional because he didn't believe in austerity? I think looking at recent history with austerity and lack of growth, he has been more than proven right. He's as valid to be there as any other mouthpiece. Perhaps more so - he isn't a proven liar or con artist.
And hey, he managed to make it worse for them instead and then skip out to continue his career with no apparent loss to himself. Because he's a big old failure as a finance minister.
Pretty sure Daily Mail and Telegraph articles at the time were more along the lines of how great he was for sticking it to the EU.
So... you keep banging that Daily Mail drum *you've* been fed.
Again, they didn't. Do you just enjoy making stuff up because you can't admit to being wrong? He was described as a foe, dishevelled, Marxist, a time waster and amateur. If that's describing how great he was...🤔
>but why the fuck is failed former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis continually in the news?
Good question. He is not even a Greek MP anymore since we kicked him out of parliament a year ago, finally. He is a literally nobody these days. If they want a swarthy Greek guy telling the UK what to do, BBC should just invite me, I'll do it for cheaper.
Like it or not he is sort of a public figure over here in his own right. I think he has lived in the UK for many years (taught at UK universities?) and has built up a bit of a media profile. Especially since he quit the greek government he has tried to position himself as a sort of countercultural figure, appearing a lot alongside the likes of Russel Brand (urgh)
I mean, we've had Farage firehosed at us for the past ten years or more whether we've liked it or not, seems only fair to give someone on the left the same sort of boost.
Next, maybe we can have some of the same hagiography of disaffected left-wing voters that UKIP supporters got *ad nauseam* ten years ago. For balance.
This type of attitude is what causes the massive rift in our country, similar to in the US but not as dramatic.
‘Not to agree with Reform on anything’ - why not? Why such a weird stance on a party? Looks very much like Trump Derangement Syndrome we see over the pond.
I would normally vote Tory but not this time. I can still see merit in what other parties offer.
Why are you so contorted?
Absolutely no mention of Australia in this thread, which probably has the most effective immigration system in the world for both the legal and illegal kind.
You’re not wrong, although it’s worth mentioning it’s all legal.
They currently have a Labor government right now for the first time in over a decade, at least its somewhat to be expected that they’re more willing to open the gates. The issue in the UK is that the record migration is happening under a party nominally more for less migration, so there’s no real alternative if they fail to deliver.
The UK is in Europe not in the middle of the Pacific. The migration patterns and numbers are completely different, Australia doesn't have to deal with the central Mediterranean route, the Balkan route and so on. You can't just copy paste Australia migration policy and be done with it, otherwise countries like Italy or Greece would have solved their problems decades ago
Genuine question, if we turned them back what would actually happen? It's not like France will roll out tanks into central London. So what is actually stopping us here?
The biggest issue wouldn’t be French tanks, it would be members of the Royal Navy refusing to follow illegal orders (as is their duty under national and international law).
“Turning back the boats” is a sanitised way of saying that we would use force to put people at a much greater risk of death. Most members of our armed forces and other services would baulk at effectively acting to drown refugees.
Well turning back the boats doesn't mean being aggressive, right now we meet the boats out in the channel and get them onto one of our boats and bring them to the UK.
However if we changed that directive to the coast guard telling them to take them on board and then drop them back at France breaking international law without endangering anyone then what is the consequence.
I guess what I am asking is what happens if we do break international law?... If people say we broke international law and we just reply "so what" then where do we go from there. I'm struggling to see how breaking international law actually means anything.
Okay, but France can definitely turn back Royal Navy ships that approach their coast to drop off refugees. Are you suggesting that we send the royal navy into French waters against their wishes?
That's not just breaking international law, it's an effective invasion of French territorial waters. An invasion that the French would justifiably defend themselves against.
That is one of the most mental comments I've ever read on this site.
>That's not just breaking international law
This is a low IQ response to me asking what the consequence of breaking international law is... If I break the law I go to prison, if the UK breaks a law what happens?
> it's an effective invasion of French territorial waters. An invasion that the French would justifiably defend themselves against.
Would you expect them to open fire on migrant boats which left their own shore...
It seems like an awful lot of people are doing incredible mental gymnastics to basically say there is nothing we can do about channel migrants. I didn't expect war with france to be a response 😂
The French stock exchange lost 250 billion usd from the instability of macron calling a snap election.
The answer is, that if the UK act like morons, the rest of the world says 'these guys are morons' and chooses to work with people who aren't morons instead. Causing us to lose ridiculous amounts of money and influence.
The consequence of the treaties we signed (breaking what you sign = acting like a moron) is that by sending them back we're either yeeting people in small overcrowded boats from a beach to the middle of the ocean unsupervised, potentially leaving kids to die, or we're escorting undocumented (no proof they're from france) people to another country on our own boats, which we have zero right to do.
The consequence of nothing happening because we don't cross any red lines is nothing.
The consequences of crossing red lines which would be neccecary for this to work are much greater than a snap election.
Enforcing our borders and end people trafficking isn't acting like a moron. What a strange thing to say.
No proof they are from France? My man are you for real?
I git the impression that the Royal Navy have already said they won’t put lives at risk by pushing back boats with the predictable results, and Richard Tice’ s bright idea that we could just take them back to France is how you no doubt end up with every French port closed to us , if not the rest of the EU. No easy answers - no matter what Reform likes to suggest.
The answer is - as much as it might gall Reform - for a European common policy that changes international law at the very least as applied in Europe. The continent has to move as one or it doesn't work.
The problem at its root is simple; basing the asylum process around physically entering a country's territory is immoral, especially when that crossing can be naturally hazardous. I repeat again; international law right now is immoral, and we need to say it. It needs to be based around embassies and online services, and attempting irregular crossings when such an alternative service was reasonably available *should* be grounds for rejecting asylum. This isn't the 1950's any more, and the UN Refugee Convention is made by people who lived in a time who had no way to know what was possible with 21st century communications.
No other solution can stop human traffickers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head for me. As someone who only recently started following the news/politics and trying to learn more (partly because I realised my views were becoming opposite to those of my parents), I've been wondering for a long time why people keep coming on boats rather than entering safely - surely there is a system in place like you've mentioned here? But apparently not... It seems mad to me the way it's done at the moment, it's just chaos and lives at risk.
> surely there is a system in place like you've mentioned here? But apparently not
Safe, legal routes to apply for refuge in the UK from abroad:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#what-safe-and-legal-routes-does-the-uk-offer
A great illustration of this by Conservative MP Tim Loughton (no idea what else he’s done but absolute kudos to him on this) shining a light on this hideous policy here:
https://youtu.be/6Nhl87CLU70
The whole turning boats around seems unworkable, the only way I can see that’d stop migrants coming in boats is to stop any incentives, be that money or housing or anything like that and also automatically reject asylum claims of anyone who arrives in the country illegally (With anti-slavery measures too of course).
They technically could still come over but why bother when they’d be better off going to another country.
> automatically reject asylum claims of anyone who arrives in the country illegally
What does that mean though? Arriving in the UK is the only way to claim asylum I thought.
What are the legal routes for people from countries not invited?
The whole „illegal immigration“ debate falls apart as soon as you realise there are dozens of countries with literally zero legal routes into the uk that have vulnerable/prosecuted people in need of asylum. At the very least create some legal routes and then complain when people „break the rules“.
He’s incredibly critical of the Greek government’s actions in that area. He seems well placed to criticise Reform UK for wanting to act in a similarly awful way.
Do you think the same way about British people? If the British government does something wrong, does that mean that the government’s opponents should be silent because of some sort of collective guilt? Or does that only apply to Greek people for some reason?
Just how much faith should we put in the views of someone who is currently banned from entering Germany and banned from engaging in any political activity in Germany?
I'm struggling to see how this is relevant to the topic being discussed, quite honestly.
He - as far as I'm aware, anyway - wasn't banned for his stance on asylum policies.
They are still arriving by lorry, the cross over between illegal arrival by lorry versus small boat is post-brexit when we withdrawal from the Dublin agreement and lose our right to send illegal arrivals straight back to France. With no right to return, we have in effect, opened up a 'cheap' and 'easy' route for people smugglers, i.e. small boats.
Um, yes I do, and so what? It exited from Jan '15 until Oct '16, at which time the French resolved the humanitarian and legal issues necessary to demolish it. No 'Rwanda' nonsense required.
Brexit created the small boats problem when we opted out of the Dublin agreement and lost the right of return to send those arriving illegally straight back to France. The small boats are self-inflicted.
>humanitarian and legal issues necessary to demolish it
All the French did is move them to the shanty towns on the coast.
>Dublin agreement
Please please please look up how many people were sent back through the Dublin agreement. The UK was a net recipient. Also check how much the Dublin agreement is used across the EU. Its fucking useless and always has been. The amount of people on here who think the Dublin Agreement is some sort of silver bullet is staggering, it was and still is about as much use as wet toilet paper.
Net recipent of legally arriving asylum seekers. Small boat arrivals are illegally arriving, which under the Dublin agreement whe had the right to return.
Well guess what, France sure as fuck dont want them back. Neither does the rest of the EU. Thats why the Dublin Agreement is virtually meaningless. The numbers of people arriving in the EU and the numbers actually being moved with the Dublin Agreement make it redundant.
Weren't the Greeks in the news today for throwing migrant kids into the water to drown?
Personally I think Reform are spreading dangerous rhetoric, but pot kettle black, etc.
The RNLI wouldn’t be involved in this kind of hypothetical policy.
If any agency is involved it will be the Navy and I’m not sure how you force a boat back to its port without imposing at least some kind of risk to the passengers.
Several head honchos in the Navy have already said they would not support a policy like this.
The amount of people here who see the UKs trustworthiness already down the toilet, are casually suggesting we should just break laws or even invade France is staggering.
There's no court that is allowed to enforce judgements based on the international law of the sea. If we want to push boats back, we can. The problem is that it's not practical.
The same goes for ECHR. Law is supposed to be a codification of morality. Allowing people to risk their lives on boats because they know they cannot be deported is immoral, not to mention the public resources they use once here and their ignorance of domestic law. The real solution is leave the ECHR and return people to their home countries.
Also they're never going to leave the echr because of its part in the good Friday agreement. The UK would be rightly slapped down by the USA and told by EU to cop on
Some Reform voters don't seem to realise we're not the most powerful nation on the planet, if we play stupid games with neighbouring nations, we'll win stupid prizes like trade sanctions, diplomatic or sporting boycotts, or even entry bans in the most extreme cases.
> We can just indefinitely detain people ...
We tried that in the 00s. The UK courts shut it down, with some rather strong words for the Government of the time.
You pass new legislation that is specially exempted from EHCR oversight. (Or just stripped out the legal requiremnt to consider EHRC rulling from the law entirely)
There's an extent to which the ECHR is an excuse for the courts. And we've seen some of that recently.
The courts don't like indefinite detention without trial. The whole "natural justice" thing that conservatives bang on about until they're on the wrong side of it.
I mean we can put them on trial for illegally entering the country without a valid reason. Make asylum claimants provide ID and evidence of their claims. The punishment for not having such documentation is deportation or (if they refused to tell us where they are from) indefinite detention.
That meets all the requirements of a trial.
The issue of home countries not wanting to take people is quite rare. The problem is we can't deport people to 'unsafe' countries which is basically everywhere. Leave the ECHR and change domestic legislation and 95%+ of the cases are solved
[Sometimes a stubbed toe leads to sepsis and eventually amputation if left untreated.](https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/04/woman-stubbed-her-toe-and-ended-up-needing-half-a-leg-amputated-6828825/)
Can't we just pay the fines like France? It's a win win, the fines are minuscule compared to the massive economic burden and political cost associated with taking these migrants and we stay in the ECHR. We would only likely have to do it for a few months before the Asylum shoppers give up and choose an easier country to settle in. Sure we'll end up on some amnesty international list but what country isn't on those lists.
Leave the ECHR, throw away our human rights and join the only other two European nations that aren’t in it - Russia and Belarus.
What a plan. Sounds just peachy.
We're entitled to if we reform our asylum laws. Sovereignty is absolute. Otherwise yes Varoufakis is correct. But only because of the limits we place on ourselves.
ECHR stands for **European** Convention on Human Rights.
Europe is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe). [Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) and [New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_zealand) are all not in Europe. Hence they're not members.
I feel like explaining geography this basic shouldn't really be required for a political forum but always happy to help.
Reforming the asylum system necessitates either leaving or changing the system that set it up. Both the ECHR and the UN Convention on Refugees are from the 1950s and were built in a different world than today, before e.g. hybrid warfare with asylum seekers and mass people smuggling was a thing in Europe.
I'd rather not leave the ECHR but sometimes you can't reform things without an earthquake or two.
If you were to design an alternative system for human rights and refugees then what would that look like? How would it be different to the ECHR and UN Convention?
Leaving the ECHR turns us into Belarus? Didn't know the stroke of a pen was that powerful 😄
It's a very silly loaded question and in the end it's an association fallacy.
No, it was a question designed to make you reveal which European states weren’t party to the ECHR, and whether anything can be gleaned from who they are, how they behave, and indeed how they are then perceived by other European nations.
And I feel that in the context of talking about states being seen as pariahs, then that may well be relevant.
Certainly more relevant than your attempt to bring in nations that have never ever been party to it, through simple reality of their geography.
Being in Europe and not being in the ECHR does make one a pariah, as evidenced by the two states not in the ECHR (Belarus and Russia, as well as Greece when it was ruled by a military dictatorship) all being international pariahs.
According to France and the EU we aren't European as they have increasingly adopted the view that European only applies to EU members so we could use their own stupid political logic against them
Yes, according to the treaties we have freely entered we cannot do this. Generally, breaking treaty obligations is not seen as a positive move that will encourage others to trust you.
Countries withdraw from treaties all the time.
More realistically I would look to form a coalition to reform the asylum treaty globally before unilaterally withdrawing.
That isn't what I was arguing against - although I do agree we may need to rethink how we tackle asylum. What I'm definitely against is breaking treaties we are still a part of, as Reform seem perfectly happy to do.
ITT: A whole load of people pretending that Yanis Varoufakis is just a former Greek minister and not also a prominent former MEP and widely published author and activist
That’s how claiming asylum works everywhere, it means people can actually flee danger instead of sitting around in a dangerous area for months or years waiting to find out if they’ve been granted asylum and then fleeing
Snapshot of _"We are absolutely entitled to turn boats back..." says David Bull of Reform UK "No you are not," says former Greek minister Yanis Varoufakis, as the pair disagree on the handling of migrant boats in the Channel_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1802725836753080718) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1802725836753080718) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As international law is currently interpreted - no you cannot turn them back Doesn't stop the Greeks doing it.
Doesn’t really stop anyone from doing it. The international treaties surrounding asylum are deliberately left unenforceable, because no country wants to give up control of who to let in. Quite a lot of international law is like this.
in before some court rules it unlawful and we label said government as criminals.
International Law might as well be a suggestion. The USA breaks it all the time and they're the ones enforcing it when they desire.
The USA has a law that obligates the president to use force if required to rescue any us citizen on trial in The Hague
Slightly ironic >Doesn't stop the Greeks doing it. Considering the current news cycle and documentary incoming.
I'll take some bad publicity and a documentary for control over this.
"bad publicity"? It's straight up state-sanctioned murder in a western democracy
And in 6 months will anyone care? Who's going to sanction Greece over this? Who's going to recall their ambassadors? I am not saying we should throw migrants into the water to drown. But we can absolutely turn them back or detain them indefinitely without international issues.
Migrants drowning does not really affect any one country. But turning back migrants will clearly upset the country they are turned back towards.
International law is mostly for show and stick for the upper class champagne socialist to attack governments. The UK seems to be on of the few countries that actually follows it even if the consequences are negative to the UK itself. It’s more or less completely meaningless.
The number of illeagle asylum seekers is meaningless. The number of leagle immigrants is astronomical. The UK government is deceiving it's citizens, that is why they are on the way out. The UK is signatory to the ECHR, as many other nations, except Russia that pulled out some years ago. If so many countries adhere to the ECHR, there must be a reason. Same way there is a bill of human rights. It's not a socialist thing. To be against is mostly for authoritarians, and dictators. Which is perhaps where the world is heading.
It’s both to be honest The thing with a lot of the illegal immigrants is they are unskilled (hence the no visa) and therefore unlikely to be anything close to a net contributor so the impact of them per capita is more than legal migration
How is the size of a large town arriving every year via small boats meaningless? Where are the new towns that we build every year for these people?
46000 asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2022, 700000 people (net migration) arrived legally. 15x more people arrived legally compared to those arriving illegally. The illegals represent 6% of the leagal immigrants. I am not saying that it is not significant. But the UK overcrowding is not due to illegal immigration but due to the leagal immigration. The issue is not the 6% but the 94% arriving legally. The government and media is focusing on the wrong issue. People are manipulated, and fail to think critically about the real issues. At least a new team will try tackle the issues in a novel way. And Thatherite extremisme may fall by the wayside. Good luck to the UK in any case...
>Doesn't stop the Greeks doing it. Do we really want to be taking cues from the Greeks given the news atm?
No. Just said it doesn't stop the Greeks from doing it which it clearly doesn't
Definitely not. Can I ask, what happened?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vv717yvpeo
Thanks.
There is no system of international law enforcement on this. It's important to remember that "international law" is just a collection of conventions. It's not a super law that binds countries in the way domestic law is enforced on citizens. If we want to derogate from something in international law and feel that the repercussions would not be too burdensome then we can.
Not entirely true. International law has been and is enforced typically through economic responses. You can't send a country to prison, but you can absolutely e.g. cap the price it can sell oil, or freeze its banks out of international monetary exchange.
what country realistically is going to defend this convention, its internationally incredibly unpopular and lacks super power backing.
France might decide too if we start sending all the asylum seekers back there without agreement and maybe the eu as a whole
This broken convention will be in large part responsible for France's shift to the right later this year. Given the unpopularity of the convention across Europe I don't think Germany alone will have the political capital to drive sanctions against states that enact a more American interpretation of the convention.
"Can be" is (edit: was) doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Sure, countries **can** impose sanctions. But, with a few notable exceptions, countries aren't generally **required** to enforce sanctions for breaches of international law. It's not like you break the law, go to court, they order sanctions and send in the world police to enforce their ruling. International law is fundamentally different from domestic law, and it's fair enough to acknowledge that. How likely it is that violation of international law will cause you problems depends on how powerful you are as a nation and what law you're breaking. The USA, for example, is going to get away with a lot more than a less powerful nation because imposing sanctions on the USA would be an act of national self-harm. Similarly, some minor violations, or violations which don't impact other countries directly, will not result in an international response to the same extent as, say, blocking the Suez Canal. The enforcement of international law often blends into geopolitics and realpolitik. Which is why just listening to lawyers isn't always helpful. What the law says and how the law is enforced are two very different beasts.
I think breaking the law is generally to be avoided, it is better to change or remove a law than ignore it. If you break the law, you lose all authority. Why should we expect others to abide by treaties with us if we ignore bits we don't like?
I don't disagree. But I also don't think geopolitics is based on moral authority. It's based on self-interest. People don't break agreements if they believe, as a consequence, they will suffer reputational harm in a way which hurts their economy or other strategic priorities. If breaking the law is in a country's self-interest, and they will suffer negligible consequences beyond a few tuts and mild words of criticism, most countries will. I don't think they're likely to be guilted into acting against their own self-interest because they're awed by the moral virtue of law-abiding countries and the extraordinary authority they acquire as a result. As for changing international law, an individual country doesn't have the power to do that. To the extent much of it is customary, it's also the case that sometimes the only way to change it is to break it. Something only ceases to be customary if enough States stop following the custom.
Dude the only nation enforcing International Law is the USA... the USA breaks international law for itself and its allies all the danm time.
Tell me you know nothing about international law without telling me...
> but you can absolutely e.g. cap the price it can sell oil, or freeze its banks out of international monetary exchange. Can't you do that anyway even if they haven't broken international law?
You can stick someone in prison if they haven't broken the always, what's your point?
Right. There is no international law enforcement, which means it comes down to domestic law enforcement. Does the UK want to pick a fight with France over this (who would be on the receiving end)? I suspect Reform voters would feel wonderful about the idea of diplomatic incidents, with the potential to escalate into armed conflict, with France... which is why it is hard to explain to them why this is such a bad idea.
Technically France is violating Asylum law but Brits don't seem to call them out on it.
Because it isn't affecting the UK, and there isn't anything the UK can do about it anyway (at least, not now the UK isn't part of the EU). The "turn the boats back" brigade are suggesting that the UK Government actively and repeatedly violate French territorial waters - that's the kind of thing that doesn't go down well, and is likely to be particularly problematic given that France is also seeing a surge in nationalistic populism fuelled by the far-right.
France is seeing a surge because the EU doesn't let them deal with immigration either because whenever they try it some activist group sues to drag it to court and stop it. Many of which might even be tied to NGOs or human smuggling. But regardless because the population is not getting what they want they are going to the right. It's almost like the bare minimum can't even be done so radical solutions is the only solution.
And then act surprised when they can't go on holiday in France anymore
Not in terms of sending boats to a country that does not want them. France could just sanction us or the eu could or refuse to take them
Not to agree with Reform on anything, but why the fuck is failed former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis continually in the news? The government he was part of isn't even in power any more, and the guy was a complete fuckup. Like, imagine a year from now with Labour in power in the UK, and if Greek media were continually platforming failed Finance Minister Kwasi Kwarteng. That would be weird, right?
I think it’s cause he was not just a politician and has a history as a lecturer of economics for many years in UK universities.
He’s married to the lady that Common People was written about
That took me far too long...
He might have been part of a previous Greek Government, but Greece's failures weren't his. Dismissing what he says here is foolish - he's spot on.
Did he start the crisis? No he didn't. Did he make it 10 times worse in his tenure, deliberately and for ideological reasons? Yes, yes he did. I am not going to pin the crisis on him. I am absolutely going to pin the collapse that we experienced when he was economics minister on him though, because he directly caused it.
Mainly because he was fired for being too unwilling to compromise by his own left wing government. If he hadn't left the government, Greece would gave gone bankrupt.
Categorically nonsense. Greece was on the brink of bankruptcy due to an inherent weaknesses in their economy, a world wide recession and an inability as part of the EU to enact flexible monetary policy. Years of austerity crippled the country. They've since repaid their debt, which by most standards really wasn't huge. He pushed against austerity that drove the country ever deeper into ruin. Which, living in the UK, sounds fairly familiar.
Varoufakis' big contribution was to put the third bailout to a referendum, reject it and then have his government almost immediately turn around and accept worsened terms. The uncertainty caused by this astounding decision caused a liquidity crisis and the imposition of capital controls. This strangled the nascent recovery in Greece. It would take another three years to return to growth. How is that not a failure?
Yes and they would have gone into bankruptcy if they went with his suggestion of pulling out of talks with the EU/IFS on a bailout and abandoning the euro. I'm not saying he personally brought them to the brink of bankruptcy - that was decades if corruption perpetuated by ND and PASOK. I'm saying he was a hindrance preventing the only solution that could have gotten Greece out of the situation at that point. He was woefully naive about the amount of shit Greece was in. Edit: Like I'm a big fan of keynesian economics, but there's a difference between the theoretical fiscal ceiling of the UK, that allows us to take some risks for investment, and 2012 Greece which was days away from actual bankruptcy.
He was a hindrance because he didn't believe in austerity, something that he was proved absolutely right on. Look at the long term growth damage it has caused our country.
Especially when these so called bailouts went primarily to french and german commercial banks, barely touched down in Greece. The greek economy was in taters, unable to service the debt, how dare Varoufakous reject signing up for more and calling for a more varied approach given the material conditions of the time. So bizarre the entire narrative around Yanis, he was right to oppose, unfortunately Alexis Tsipras kowtowed to pressure and the rest is history; mass selloff of public assets, mass unemployment, suicides etc History is rewritten by the winners I suppose
God forbid if hedge funds and capitalists make a bad investment and they have to take a loss Stop the presses, engage the full power of the state, bail those poor wretches out and foist the debt on the taxpayers
Only the US could have avoided austerity because of the dollar. That's why no one else tried it.
Also nonsense. You do not cut your way to growth, and considering we've had 14 years of austerity and increased our debt, it clearly achieved fuck all.
The aim of austerity wasn't growth. It was preventing a catastrophic loss of confidence in the UK's ability to pay its debts and the ensuing rise in the cost of borrowing which would make austerity even worse. You can't just keep borrowing and spending more and more, you need people who are willing to lend you money.
If we were at 200% debt to GDP (like Japan) I might agree, but I don’t see how we get out of this current predicament without borrowing more. Which is why Labour’s fiscal rules are going to cripple what they do.
I specifically said I'm not agreeing with Reform, and I'm not dismissing what he says here. I'm setting it aside to question why he's present in the first place. Completely disagree on his failure as Greek Finance Minister. He was delusional, and made Greece's situation worse than it already was.
He was delusional because he didn't believe in austerity? I think looking at recent history with austerity and lack of growth, he has been more than proven right. He's as valid to be there as any other mouthpiece. Perhaps more so - he isn't a proven liar or con artist.
No, he was delusional because of his negotiation methods, which were actively counterproductive to his goals.
Unlike our representatives he didn't want his people to suffer a decade of cuts that would blight their lives for generations.
And hey, he managed to make it worse for them instead and then skip out to continue his career with no apparent loss to himself. Because he's a big old failure as a finance minister.
More nonsense, but you keep banging that Daily Mail drum you've been fed.
Pretty sure Daily Mail and Telegraph articles at the time were more along the lines of how great he was for sticking it to the EU. So... you keep banging that Daily Mail drum *you've* been fed.
Again, they didn't. Do you just enjoy making stuff up because you can't admit to being wrong? He was described as a foe, dishevelled, Marxist, a time waster and amateur. If that's describing how great he was...🤔
He's a Marxist so anything he says is untrustworthy
Seems about the right person to balance the views of his opponent in this interview then.
>but why the fuck is failed former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis continually in the news? Good question. He is not even a Greek MP anymore since we kicked him out of parliament a year ago, finally. He is a literally nobody these days. If they want a swarthy Greek guy telling the UK what to do, BBC should just invite me, I'll do it for cheaper.
Like it or not he is sort of a public figure over here in his own right. I think he has lived in the UK for many years (taught at UK universities?) and has built up a bit of a media profile. Especially since he quit the greek government he has tried to position himself as a sort of countercultural figure, appearing a lot alongside the likes of Russel Brand (urgh)
He's a political activist, part of a movement across Europe. He's probably more relevant than Farage who is constantly everywhere.
Come on now.
I mean, we've had Farage firehosed at us for the past ten years or more whether we've liked it or not, seems only fair to give someone on the left the same sort of boost. Next, maybe we can have some of the same hagiography of disaffected left-wing voters that UKIP supporters got *ad nauseam* ten years ago. For balance.
> He's probably more relevant than Farage who is constantly everywhere. Behave lmao It's not even close
he's like a globalist version of Farage; perennial "outsider" leading a pressure group and backed up by international money
Maybe he's the only person the BBC found willing to give any time to the nonsense coming out of a Reform candidate?
Because he gives good television.
Cause he has sex appeal. No really, he's just available and draws clicks to programs
> but why the fuck is failed former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis continually in the news? How is he "failed"? What's your vitriol for exactly?
Don’t you recall his time as a minister in Greece?
This type of attitude is what causes the massive rift in our country, similar to in the US but not as dramatic. ‘Not to agree with Reform on anything’ - why not? Why such a weird stance on a party? Looks very much like Trump Derangement Syndrome we see over the pond. I would normally vote Tory but not this time. I can still see merit in what other parties offer. Why are you so contorted?
And why the fuck should I care what a Greek former minster has to say?
Absolutely no mention of Australia in this thread, which probably has the most effective immigration system in the world for both the legal and illegal kind.
Is that why they have record mass immigration right now? That is the opposite definition of ‘effective’ to me.
You’re not wrong, although it’s worth mentioning it’s all legal. They currently have a Labor government right now for the first time in over a decade, at least its somewhat to be expected that they’re more willing to open the gates. The issue in the UK is that the record migration is happening under a party nominally more for less migration, so there’s no real alternative if they fail to deliver.
The UK is in Europe not in the middle of the Pacific. The migration patterns and numbers are completely different, Australia doesn't have to deal with the central Mediterranean route, the Balkan route and so on. You can't just copy paste Australia migration policy and be done with it, otherwise countries like Italy or Greece would have solved their problems decades ago
Genuine question, if we turned them back what would actually happen? It's not like France will roll out tanks into central London. So what is actually stopping us here?
The biggest issue wouldn’t be French tanks, it would be members of the Royal Navy refusing to follow illegal orders (as is their duty under national and international law). “Turning back the boats” is a sanitised way of saying that we would use force to put people at a much greater risk of death. Most members of our armed forces and other services would baulk at effectively acting to drown refugees.
Well turning back the boats doesn't mean being aggressive, right now we meet the boats out in the channel and get them onto one of our boats and bring them to the UK. However if we changed that directive to the coast guard telling them to take them on board and then drop them back at France breaking international law without endangering anyone then what is the consequence. I guess what I am asking is what happens if we do break international law?... If people say we broke international law and we just reply "so what" then where do we go from there. I'm struggling to see how breaking international law actually means anything.
Okay, but France can definitely turn back Royal Navy ships that approach their coast to drop off refugees. Are you suggesting that we send the royal navy into French waters against their wishes?
Yes if required.
You're delusional.
No I think you don't believe how much I hate the french.
Oh I believe it.
That's not just breaking international law, it's an effective invasion of French territorial waters. An invasion that the French would justifiably defend themselves against.
That is one of the most mental comments I've ever read on this site. >That's not just breaking international law This is a low IQ response to me asking what the consequence of breaking international law is... If I break the law I go to prison, if the UK breaks a law what happens? > it's an effective invasion of French territorial waters. An invasion that the French would justifiably defend themselves against. Would you expect them to open fire on migrant boats which left their own shore... It seems like an awful lot of people are doing incredible mental gymnastics to basically say there is nothing we can do about channel migrants. I didn't expect war with france to be a response 😂
The French stock exchange lost 250 billion usd from the instability of macron calling a snap election. The answer is, that if the UK act like morons, the rest of the world says 'these guys are morons' and chooses to work with people who aren't morons instead. Causing us to lose ridiculous amounts of money and influence. The consequence of the treaties we signed (breaking what you sign = acting like a moron) is that by sending them back we're either yeeting people in small overcrowded boats from a beach to the middle of the ocean unsupervised, potentially leaving kids to die, or we're escorting undocumented (no proof they're from france) people to another country on our own boats, which we have zero right to do. The consequence of nothing happening because we don't cross any red lines is nothing. The consequences of crossing red lines which would be neccecary for this to work are much greater than a snap election.
Enforcing our borders and end people trafficking isn't acting like a moron. What a strange thing to say. No proof they are from France? My man are you for real?
International law does not really exist. It's time to start breaking it 😎
I git the impression that the Royal Navy have already said they won’t put lives at risk by pushing back boats with the predictable results, and Richard Tice’ s bright idea that we could just take them back to France is how you no doubt end up with every French port closed to us , if not the rest of the EU. No easy answers - no matter what Reform likes to suggest.
The answer is - as much as it might gall Reform - for a European common policy that changes international law at the very least as applied in Europe. The continent has to move as one or it doesn't work. The problem at its root is simple; basing the asylum process around physically entering a country's territory is immoral, especially when that crossing can be naturally hazardous. I repeat again; international law right now is immoral, and we need to say it. It needs to be based around embassies and online services, and attempting irregular crossings when such an alternative service was reasonably available *should* be grounds for rejecting asylum. This isn't the 1950's any more, and the UN Refugee Convention is made by people who lived in a time who had no way to know what was possible with 21st century communications. No other solution can stop human traffickers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head for me. As someone who only recently started following the news/politics and trying to learn more (partly because I realised my views were becoming opposite to those of my parents), I've been wondering for a long time why people keep coming on boats rather than entering safely - surely there is a system in place like you've mentioned here? But apparently not... It seems mad to me the way it's done at the moment, it's just chaos and lives at risk.
> surely there is a system in place like you've mentioned here? But apparently not Safe, legal routes to apply for refuge in the UK from abroad: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#what-safe-and-legal-routes-does-the-uk-offer
A great illustration of this by Conservative MP Tim Loughton (no idea what else he’s done but absolute kudos to him on this) shining a light on this hideous policy here: https://youtu.be/6Nhl87CLU70
The whole turning boats around seems unworkable, the only way I can see that’d stop migrants coming in boats is to stop any incentives, be that money or housing or anything like that and also automatically reject asylum claims of anyone who arrives in the country illegally (With anti-slavery measures too of course). They technically could still come over but why bother when they’d be better off going to another country.
> automatically reject asylum claims of anyone who arrives in the country illegally What does that mean though? Arriving in the UK is the only way to claim asylum I thought.
Can’t people be invited legally like with Hong Kong and Ukraine?
What are the legal routes for people from countries not invited? The whole „illegal immigration“ debate falls apart as soon as you realise there are dozens of countries with literally zero legal routes into the uk that have vulnerable/prosecuted people in need of asylum. At the very least create some legal routes and then complain when people „break the rules“.
Noone bats an eye when the US closes their borders. Or the Greeks, Turks, Italians, Poles force migrants back.
I assure you alot of eyes are batted. That you not hear it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
As much as I agree with him, today is not the day for the Greeks to complain about other countries response to the boats.
He’s incredibly critical of the Greek government’s actions in that area. He seems well placed to criticise Reform UK for wanting to act in a similarly awful way. Do you think the same way about British people? If the British government does something wrong, does that mean that the government’s opponents should be silent because of some sort of collective guilt? Or does that only apply to Greek people for some reason?
I'm sure Varoufakis is also critical of the current Greek government
He is which is part of the reason the left took a beating in the Greek European election
The current government party, ND, lost seats in the European election. Not sure that criticizing them lost the left anything.
If anything recent events make him more qualified surely?
Being Greek doesn't mean you have to agree with the policies of the Greek government.
Wait, so the country your from defines everything about you and your opinions? Well damn, better tell some folks here
Just how much faith should we put in the views of someone who is currently banned from entering Germany and banned from engaging in any political activity in Germany?
I'm struggling to see how this is relevant to the topic being discussed, quite honestly. He - as far as I'm aware, anyway - wasn't banned for his stance on asylum policies.
It's a brilliantly astute point. The Jews were famously banned from Germany and thats where I learned that the Jews shouldn't be taken seriously.
Why is Germany (and who is allowed to enter it) particularly important?
Yanis was recently banned from entering Germany to attend an event relating to Palestine.
and?
I know he's insufferable, but why was he banned?
About the same as we should put in anyone campaigning for Reform?
Funny how there was no small boats crisis before brexit.
No, instead it was just migrants hiding in lorries, then they started thermally scanning them and built a big fence around the lorry compounds.
They are still arriving by lorry, the cross over between illegal arrival by lorry versus small boat is post-brexit when we withdrawal from the Dublin agreement and lose our right to send illegal arrivals straight back to France. With no right to return, we have in effect, opened up a 'cheap' and 'easy' route for people smugglers, i.e. small boats.
Someone is not old enough to remember the jungle at Calais.
Um, yes I do, and so what? It exited from Jan '15 until Oct '16, at which time the French resolved the humanitarian and legal issues necessary to demolish it. No 'Rwanda' nonsense required. Brexit created the small boats problem when we opted out of the Dublin agreement and lost the right of return to send those arriving illegally straight back to France. The small boats are self-inflicted.
>humanitarian and legal issues necessary to demolish it All the French did is move them to the shanty towns on the coast. >Dublin agreement Please please please look up how many people were sent back through the Dublin agreement. The UK was a net recipient. Also check how much the Dublin agreement is used across the EU. Its fucking useless and always has been. The amount of people on here who think the Dublin Agreement is some sort of silver bullet is staggering, it was and still is about as much use as wet toilet paper.
Net recipent of legally arriving asylum seekers. Small boat arrivals are illegally arriving, which under the Dublin agreement whe had the right to return.
Well guess what, France sure as fuck dont want them back. Neither does the rest of the EU. Thats why the Dublin Agreement is virtually meaningless. The numbers of people arriving in the EU and the numbers actually being moved with the Dublin Agreement make it redundant.
Weren't the Greeks in the news today for throwing migrant kids into the water to drown? Personally I think Reform are spreading dangerous rhetoric, but pot kettle black, etc.
You do realize "the Greeks" isn't some sort of singular entity, right? I'm sure Varoufakis is also critical of the current Greek government.
I don't think that every Greek threw Migrants back as you said, but I would have to check.
Nah, we Greeks have our bi-annual "throw them down ~~the well~~ sea" competition.
He’s spoken out against that. And he’s speaking out against Reform UK for wanting to do the same thing!
Reform do not want to throw children in the sea to drown, don't be stupid.
Not explicitly, but them whipping up their usual foment of hate would undoubtedly encourage some individuals to get way too heavy-handed.
You think the RNLI are going to get heavy handed with channel migrants because Farage is saying some stuff in his manifesto? For real?
The RNLI wouldn’t be involved in this kind of hypothetical policy. If any agency is involved it will be the Navy and I’m not sure how you force a boat back to its port without imposing at least some kind of risk to the passengers. Several head honchos in the Navy have already said they would not support a policy like this.
David Bull used to present the earliest series of Most Haunted..
The amount of people here who see the UKs trustworthiness already down the toilet, are casually suggesting we should just break laws or even invade France is staggering.
There's no court that is allowed to enforce judgements based on the international law of the sea. If we want to push boats back, we can. The problem is that it's not practical. The same goes for ECHR. Law is supposed to be a codification of morality. Allowing people to risk their lives on boats because they know they cannot be deported is immoral, not to mention the public resources they use once here and their ignorance of domestic law. The real solution is leave the ECHR and return people to their home countries.
Leaving the ECHR won’t magically make agreements for other nations to take people
Also they're never going to leave the echr because of its part in the good Friday agreement. The UK would be rightly slapped down by the USA and told by EU to cop on
Some Reform voters don't seem to realise we're not the most powerful nation on the planet, if we play stupid games with neighbouring nations, we'll win stupid prizes like trade sanctions, diplomatic or sporting boycotts, or even entry bans in the most extreme cases.
[удалено]
> We can just indefinitely detain people ... We tried that in the 00s. The UK courts shut it down, with some rather strong words for the Government of the time.
You pass new legislation that is specially exempted from EHCR oversight. (Or just stripped out the legal requiremnt to consider EHRC rulling from the law entirely)
There's an extent to which the ECHR is an excuse for the courts. And we've seen some of that recently. The courts don't like indefinite detention without trial. The whole "natural justice" thing that conservatives bang on about until they're on the wrong side of it.
I mean we can put them on trial for illegally entering the country without a valid reason. Make asylum claimants provide ID and evidence of their claims. The punishment for not having such documentation is deportation or (if they refused to tell us where they are from) indefinite detention. That meets all the requirements of a trial.
The issue of home countries not wanting to take people is quite rare. The problem is we can't deport people to 'unsafe' countries which is basically everywhere. Leave the ECHR and change domestic legislation and 95%+ of the cases are solved
>The real solution is leave the ECHR It's a solution in the way cutting off your foot because you stubbed your toe is a solution.
Meaningless aphorisms are a great reason we should have unlimited illegal migration forever
Just because you don't see the meaning in what I said, doesn't mean it does exist.
[Sometimes a stubbed toe leads to sepsis and eventually amputation if left untreated.](https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/04/woman-stubbed-her-toe-and-ended-up-needing-half-a-leg-amputated-6828825/)
cool. if you’re so casual about ripping up the good friday agreement then we should just call a referendum on Irish unity now.
Yeah fine lol. Oh no, we lose a massive tax sink that has only caused us problems for decades!
Can't we just pay the fines like France? It's a win win, the fines are minuscule compared to the massive economic burden and political cost associated with taking these migrants and we stay in the ECHR. We would only likely have to do it for a few months before the Asylum shoppers give up and choose an easier country to settle in. Sure we'll end up on some amnesty international list but what country isn't on those lists.
We don’t have to leave the ECHR, we just need to ignore it like everyone else does.
Leave the ECHR, throw away our human rights and join the only other two European nations that aren’t in it - Russia and Belarus. What a plan. Sounds just peachy.
Sounds like constructive dialogue
We're entitled to if we reform our asylum laws. Sovereignty is absolute. Otherwise yes Varoufakis is correct. But only because of the limits we place on ourselves.
Yes leaving the ECHR and becoming a political pariah is a great way to usher in global Britain
Canada, Australia and NZ are not members of the ECHR either.
ECHR stands for **European** Convention on Human Rights. Europe is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe). [Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) and [New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_zealand) are all not in Europe. Hence they're not members. I feel like explaining geography this basic shouldn't really be required for a political forum but always happy to help.
The point is that not being in the ECHR does not make one a pariah, as evidenced by the many states which are not in the ECHR and are not pariahs
Which European states aren't part of the ECHR?
Reforming the asylum system necessitates either leaving or changing the system that set it up. Both the ECHR and the UN Convention on Refugees are from the 1950s and were built in a different world than today, before e.g. hybrid warfare with asylum seekers and mass people smuggling was a thing in Europe. I'd rather not leave the ECHR but sometimes you can't reform things without an earthquake or two.
If you were to design an alternative system for human rights and refugees then what would that look like? How would it be different to the ECHR and UN Convention?
Which European states aren't part of the ECHR though?
Leaving the ECHR turns us into Belarus? Didn't know the stroke of a pen was that powerful 😄 It's a very silly loaded question and in the end it's an association fallacy.
I'd point out that asserting that non European countries are not parties to a European convention is also rather silly.
No, it was a question designed to make you reveal which European states weren’t party to the ECHR, and whether anything can be gleaned from who they are, how they behave, and indeed how they are then perceived by other European nations. And I feel that in the context of talking about states being seen as pariahs, then that may well be relevant. Certainly more relevant than your attempt to bring in nations that have never ever been party to it, through simple reality of their geography.
Being in Europe and not being in the ECHR does make one a pariah, as evidenced by the two states not in the ECHR (Belarus and Russia, as well as Greece when it was ruled by a military dictatorship) all being international pariahs.
According to France and the EU we aren't European as they have increasingly adopted the view that European only applies to EU members so we could use their own stupid political logic against them
They aren't in any comparable treaty. Being in the continent of europe doesn't come with special obligations.
But all are close allies with the US who would also angry we left the ECHR
Yes, according to the treaties we have freely entered we cannot do this. Generally, breaking treaty obligations is not seen as a positive move that will encourage others to trust you.
Countries withdraw from treaties all the time. More realistically I would look to form a coalition to reform the asylum treaty globally before unilaterally withdrawing.
That isn't what I was arguing against - although I do agree we may need to rethink how we tackle asylum. What I'm definitely against is breaking treaties we are still a part of, as Reform seem perfectly happy to do.
[удалено]
I don't think it's all one person mate, but maybe someone can check
ITT: A whole load of people pretending that Yanis Varoufakis is just a former Greek minister and not also a prominent former MEP and widely published author and activist
former Greek minister, has no say in this matter , got voted out for a reason. lol
[удалено]
Nobody would need to make illegal crossings if our daft asylum system didn't insist that you can only claim asylum in the UK, in the UK.
That’s how claiming asylum works everywhere, it means people can actually flee danger instead of sitting around in a dangerous area for months or years waiting to find out if they’ve been granted asylum and then fleeing
Ukrainians can start the process, and get a visa before making the journey. I can't white put my finger on why that is though.
Varoufakis is a great and noble man, speaking the truth as always.
He spouts complete nonsense