So, what was the point of Brexit?

[papasmurf]

No the whole Brexit project was built on the idea that the British should run their affairs rather than having the French do it.

That has failed badly.

[Borchester]

The difference is that the whole Brexit project is built on selling the idea that we in the UK know how to do everything better than, for example, the French.

No the whole Brexit project was built on the idea that the British should run their affairs rather than having the French do it.

[Javert]

Right , there's are 2 illegal immigrants standing on the beach in France, one sets of for the U.K. the day before Brexit and one the day after. What difference does Brexit or an immigration policy make to them arriving in Dover? Absolutely none! It's an illegal act and immigration policies don't have any governance over illegal acts.

What does make a difference is the EU, more specifically France not giving a toss and looking the other way.

The difference is that the whole Brexit project is built on selling the idea that we in the UK know how to do everything better than, for example, the French.  Just the technical act of Brexit made it less easy to cooperate with France on how to reduce the flow of refugees, and then the political side of it demands that this myth that we are in control of everything means that if something goes wrong, it must be the fault of the French so let's have a pop at them.

Do you not think that if we could send them back to France, we would be doing so - a lot cheaper than trying to send them to Rwanda.

There is a big exceptionalism here - if you look at it the other way around - if there were 30,000 refugees in camps in Kent, and they were all trying to sail in dinghies to France, I don't think you would be demanding that we do more to help the French and make sure they stay here.

The only way they will ever make significant reductions to this flow, is to find a way to cooperate with the French to track down and imprison the actual criminals.  The policy of punishing the victims after they have already sailed across is completely ridiculous and a child could easily see that.

Yet they are still going on about sending them to Rwanda and claiming that this will solve the issue by deterrence - clearly not because they have been screaming and shouting that they are going to send them to Rwanda for the last 6 months, and it hasn't put off anybody from trying to come here.

As for the earlier proposal on this forum to put them back in the boats with only enough fuel to reach France - that would be contrary to international maritime law as it would be putting the people in the dinghy in serious danger of their life, plus they might just turn around and head for the UK anyway and wait to be picked up again.  Bottom line is that if France doesn't want to take them back, they cannot be forced to do so.  In international politics you need friends, as the UK is finding out.

Also could you please provide some evidence for your claim in an earlier thread that the approach taking in Australia involved forced landing refugees back in the country they set sail from without permission, and also that this approach directly caused the flow of refugees to stop - this is not my understanding from my limited knowledge of the topic - as far as I recall, I remember reading that the halt in the flow was due to the resolution of the issues that was causing the flow in the first place rather than the Australian actions on the boats themselves.

[cromwell]

I'm going to sound a right bastard here but we have little choice we are going to have to take a hard approach.

Forget recession,climate change and the eu the world is over populated and the have nots want to join the haves,I don't blame them but we cannot take the ever rising numbers which will turn in to a flood.

There needs to be a stricter policy of taking genuine asylum seekers and those that bring something to the table,looking ahead I see ever more on the move a lot of people are going to die by war,famine and natural disasters.

It makes little difference to me I'm near the finishing line but I do care about my country those here already and those that come after.

[papasmurf]

The British government nor Home Office has has anything to do with 2 million refugees let into a so called controlled zone.

They both have everything to do with the 300000 immigrants legally entering the UK last year. (ONS)

[Nick]

Merkel has zero to do with the incompetence of the British government and especially the Home Office.

The British government nor Home Office has has anything to do with 2 million refugees let into a so called controlled zone.

[T00ts]

Why is everyone so unreasonable? Just how do you propose to stop people jumping into dinghies when criminals have told them that the pavements are paved with gold, that the crossings are safe and that they will be welcomed with open arms into a land of milk and honey. It is disingenuous to pretend that when we were in the EU things were better. It has taken these years for the criminals to fool proof their acts.

We aren't just talking about politics here we are up against major crime. It has nothing to do with Brexit. Who honestly thinks that open borders right across the EU was any kind of deterrent? No country wants the problem of unfettered immigration so is happy for them to pass through and they will pass through to the country which has the most appeal, and that's us. If we look across all of Europe they are all struggling with the lawlessness that immigration has brought in.

It was correctly called an invasion and the sooner we recognise this and deal with it accordingly the better for all. If we have the money to house them here for free then we should be handing out in their homelands and trying to improve their infrastructure. Trouble is we are borrowing to do it and thus they will ruin us.

[papasmurf]

Merkel, I've answered this already.

Merkel has zero to do with the incompetence of the British government and especially the Home Office.

[Nick]

Wasn't Brexit sold on control of our borders? Someone wanted to pretend we stood a chance, yet now we stood no chance. Fact we controlled this problem far better in. 2019 and previous, than we obviously do now. [highlight]WHATS CHANGED[/highlight].
Which country ? The United one, or the fragmented one.

Merkel, I've answered this already. 

[papasmurf]

Wasn't Brexit sold on control of our borders?

Quite. With around 300000 immigrants being let into Britain legally last year. (ONS.) I don't call that controlling borders.

[Good old]

The only involvement by the EU to the refugee influx was when Merkel opened German borders telling everyone to come. It has taken a few years for those who realised a potential business plan to fine tune their operation but once the EU was 'open' we didn't stand a chance. Brexit hasn't changed anything except for those who think that by somehow blaming Brexit for everything it will see us slink back with our tail between our legs.
It's dishonest but then many things about the EU are dishonest. If those working so hard to undermine the country tried supporting it instead we might be better off.

Wasn't Brexit sold on control of our borders? Someone wanted to pretend we stood a chance, yet now we stood no chance. Fact we controlled this problem far better in. 2019 and previous, than we obviously do now. WHATS CHANGED.
Which country ? The United one, or the fragmented one.

[papasmurf]

The French have always had a crappy attitude,

For which I admire the French people. (It looks like British people are at long last getting the same attitude.)

[Nick]

So what changed.? Before 2019 it might of been only two standing on that beach 2022 it is hundreds fast becoming thousands now. Why not before 2019, what visibly changed? Leading to change in everyone's attitude to everything regarding attitude to co-operation between nations.
Yes attitudes on the French sides have changed . The biggest problem you and Brexit has ever had , is it's failure to accept  that not only brexiteers have attitude. Wasn't it attitude on this side of the channel to the EU that caused Brexit in the first place?
No good whinging about French attitude when we have so much of our own.

The French have always had a crappy attitude, do you not remember burning tyres thrust under our wagons with livestock onboard?

What changed? How about Merkel allowing millions of Syrian, Iraqi and Afghans into the EU, there's no border control and the EU is leaking like a sieve.

[papasmurf]

 Brexit hasn't changed anything  

Try telling that to the businesses than have gone bust due to the regulations, and those whose have stopped importing/exporting from and to the EU because of the regulations, and those who have lost their jobs.

[T00ts]

So what changed.? Before 2019 it might of been only two standing on that beach 2022 it is hundreds fast becoming thousands now. Why not before 2019, what visibly changed? Leading to change in everyone's attitude to everything regarding attitude to co-operation between nations.
Yes attitudes on the French sides have changed . The biggest problem you and Brexit has ever had , is it's failure to accept  that not only brexiteers have attitude. Wasn't it attitude on this side of the channel to the EU that caused Brexit in the first place?
No good whinging about French attitude when we have so much of our own.

The only involvement by the EU to the refugee influx was when Merkel opened German borders telling everyone to come. It has taken a few years for those who realised a potential business plan to fine tune their operation but once the EU was 'open' we didn't stand a chance. Brexit hasn't changed anything except for those who think that by somehow blaming Brexit for everything it will see us slink back with our tail between our legs. 
It's dishonest but then many things about the EU are dishonest. If those working so hard to undermine the country tried supporting it instead we might be better off.