I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics3 mins ago
Suella's Letter To Sunak
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Meanwhile as the Government gives in to the "anti semetic" mobs, who are wholehearted supporters of religious wackos, and sacks the only member trying to subdue their hatred. ... The National(that used to mean our Nation) Trust sends out their 2024 calenders that do not show any Christian festivals or holidays. No Easter or Christmas next year then. However you will not miss, through oversight, hinduism's diwali, and islam's eid and ramadan. Order now whilst stocks last.
If only there were some agreement with the EU to send the boats back like there was before 'something' happened...
Hmmm… From the article:
“Can you guess what it concluded was “the primary factor behind the current problem”? The government’s post-Brexit deal, and specifically its failure to reach a “returns agreement with the EU”, whereby unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered.
Before Brexit, there was just such an arrangement. But it expired once Britain left – and the government put nothing in its place.”
Presumably Mr Freedman was talking of the much lauded “Dublin Agreement”.
What he didn’t mention in his article was that agreement was not quite what he would like us to believe. The Government initially stated that they intended to seek to participate in the Dublin Regulation after Brexit. The agreement, which determines which country is responsible for processing asylum seekers’ claims, has been touted as a boon to the UK because it includes a provision on returning asylum seekers to their EU country of first arrival. The agreement is a two-edged sword and as well as providing for asylum seekers to be transferred from the UK back to the EU , it also provides for them to be sent to the UK. When the figures are examined, in recent years it has been of very little benefit to Britain in this respect and it is not surprising the UK declined to continue to participate.
Home Office statistics show that in 2015, 131 people were transferred to the UK, against 510 people who were transferred out. This was the last year when transfers out of the UK exceeded those transferred in. The figures for the following two years were as follows:
2016 – 552 In, 362 Out
2017 – 461 in, 314 Out
In 2018 the number transferred in (1,215) was almost six times those transferred out (209).
Digging into the figures it can be found that large number of transfers to the UK during the period were under articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation. These stipulate that, under certain conditions, the applications of some of those in EU countries, whose relatives are already in the UK, should be dealt with by the UK. But the majority of transfers out were under Article 13, which mandates that asylum seekers who move on after being registered in a country of first arrival can be returned to that country.
The article also does not mention that the agreement only provided for the return to Europe of refugees who had previously claimed asylum elsewhere. It is likely that few, if any, of those arriving in small boats have lodged a claim elsewhere.
Taking this into account it is highly likely that the UK may have withdrawn from the agreement even had we remained in the EU. There was nothing in it for us. As for your suggestion that there was “…some agreement with the EU to send the boats back”, I’m afraid it is simplistic and misleading nonsense.
Sunak is now toast. There is not a snowball's chance of the Tories winning the next election.
A terrific letter, if (like many of her pronouncements) rather over-stressed in places. Beautifully aimed below the belt.
Backed up by the (now) common knowledge that Sunak and Cameron met last week, so that when Sunak was saying that Suella had his full confidence - he was lying.
I was hoping that, somehow, I'd be able to vote Conservative. Probably 'Reform' for me now - or the Yorkshire Party; I voted for them in the locals and they gained their first Councillor.
I'd already half decided to write to my MP because of Sunak being imposed- now I shall.
In what universe was Rishi Sunak "imposed" on anyone? He was elected party leader by his MPs and as leader of the largest party became PM: that is how it always works. The fact that there was no general election is not relevant as that is not how our system works. These people are clinging to the nonsense that ever since Boris Johnson had to resign no other party leader has been legitimate. It's an error the opposition makes too, for different reasons.
> The best bit in Braverman's letter is where she says she was prepared to accept Sunak despite him having no public mandate as long as he agreed to her secret deal the public didn't even know about.
> Backed up by the (now) common knowledge that Sunak and Cameron met last week
I suppose some secret deals are more acceptable than others. The ones that are always in the dark are, of course, the electorate. They work for us ... yeah, right.
That ‘bitter sacked woman letter’ contains some very dangerous ideas, that she would likely want to put into place, should she ever become PM.
In fact I think she wanted out of Sunak’s government to avoid going down with the ship. When the Tory party sack Sunak for the disastrous General Election result, she will be well placed to say ‘Nothing to do with me’.
And the Brexit vote was ... 2016. Is that just a coincidence?
Yes. The Agreement was unchanged by the result of the referendum and it was operated under the same principles until the UK left. In fact, looking at the figures prior to 2015, it was never of any great advantage to the UK.
Professor Brooks, who wrote the report to which Mr Freedman refers, mentions specifically "The government’s post-Brexit deal, and specifically its failure to reach a “returns agreement with the EU, whereby unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered." He cites that as if it was as simple as that, and that the lack of such an agreement is the cause of the small boats crisis. I've only read the Executive Summary to Prof. Brooks's report (it is 55 pages long) but his primary conclusion is this:
"1. The primary factor behind small boat crossings is the UK’s lacking a returns agreement with the EU. The Report’s main finding is that the lack of a returns agreement with the EU is the primary factor behind the current problem. The Government never assessed the impact of the consequences for leaving the EU without a returns agreement to replace the Dublin III Regulation and was caught by surprise."
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of those crossing by small boats would not be eligible for return under the Dublin Agreement and it is quite misleading for the Professor to put forward such a conclusion. As well as that, as can be seen from the figures I provided, the numbers involved were quite tiny compared to the numbers of arrivals. The Dublin Agreement (or any successor to it) would have had a minimal impact in the numbers arriving here. In 2015 (before the referendum and whilst Dublin was still in force) there were over 32,000 asylum applications made in the UK (and no doubt a considerable number who arrived but who did not claim asylum), yet only 510 people were transferred out under Dublin.
Professor Brooks is being disingenuous to suggest that the lack of a returns agreement is fuelling the crisis. Many EU countries are suffering overwhelming problems with cross-border illegall migration. They all have the advantage of the Dublin Agreement but a number of them have taken to closing their border crossings with their neighbours (and so summarily ditching their responsibilities to maintain open borders under Schengen). Dublin doesn't work for them and it wouldn't work for us. And the likelihood is we would have to accept more "transfers in" than we could transfer out.
So it's just a coincidence that the number of small boats has grown enormously since Brexit.
Yes. It coincides with the huge increase in cross border migration in mainland European countries over a similar period. MAny European countries are suffering far greater influxes than the UK and, as I said, some are having to take strong measures to deal with it. Some have closed borders and others - including Germany - are proposing processing migrants offshore a la the UK's proposed Rwands scheme.
Those increases are just as significant as our small boat problem - some even more so. Whatever the reasons for those increases are, they are certainly (in the mainland European countries) nothing to do with Brexit so there's no reason to assume that our problem is due to it either.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Film, Media & TV24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.