BoJo banished - Liz Truss down. Is Rishi next for the toaster? **threadbans in OP**

If the general population supported these ERG policies the ERG members wouldn't keep their wider membership secret.

It's hugely undemocratic to run for election under a party manifesto when your allegiance is actually with a more extreme secret society that are subverting the party from within.

The majority of Tory voters don't know what the ERG is.

Is this the extension, at more cost,of the deal that was already there?

Taking back control by relying on other countries to deal with the problem.

It seems to be a bit of a PR stunt or window dressing.

The Tories themselves probably don't give a hoot about refugees in dinghies (not too sure about Braverman though). They mostly see inventing a "crisis" around the issue as a potential vote winner.

It's not at all funny given that the 'new deal' is a complete non story. An update to an existing agreement that won't materially change anything

And Braverman isn't attacking illegal immigration, she's attacking asylum seekers

She's doing very little to stop illegal immigration, and a lot to further oppress people genuinely fleeing persecution

There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a refugee has to stay in the first 'safe country'

Given that refugees usually never return to their home country, they are entitled to make their way to a country that they choose to apply for asylum in. There can be lots of reasons why they would choose one country over another. You would obviously want to re-settle in a place where you feel you can succeed, where you speak the language, and maybe have friends or family who can help you to settle down.

The Geneva convention says that refugees can only apply for asylum when they are in the country they are applying to, (or if there is a processing centre that has been set up for that purpose)

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers. They have rights under international law and are entitled to be treated humanely and have their needs met while their application is being processed. If their application is rejected, they can be deported

There is a sentence 'Coming Directly' in the geneva convention which has been mis-interpreted by the right wing press to mean that they have to stop at the first 'safe country' but this is not how it has been interpreted by pretty much every court that has ever looked at it, including the British courts who ruled in 1999 that travelling through one or more countries to get to somewhere is still going directly there.

Adimi, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge Magistrates Court & Anor [1999] EWHC Admin 765 (29 July 1999) (bailii.org)

(a) “Coming directly ”

17. The respondents accept that a literal construction of “directly” would contravene the clear purpose of the Article and they accordingly accept that this condition can be satisfied even if the refugee passes through intermediate countries on his way to the United Kingdom. But that is only so, they argue, provided that he could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection in any such intermediate country and this will not be the case unless he has actually needed, rather than merely desired, to come to the United Kingdom. In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel.

18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee (ExCom), and the writings of well respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway and Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.

19. It is worth quoting in this regard the UNHCR‘s own Guidelines with regard to the Detention of Asylum Seekers:

"The expression ‘coming directly’ in Article 31(1) covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept ‘coming directly’ and each case must be judged on its merits."

The right wing press love to quote this 'coming directly' clause because they think it means other countries have to deal with all the refugees, even if those refugees end up in overcrowded camps in awful conditions

The fact that they do not care at all about these people and see them as sub-human and 'someone else's' problem' is part of the reason why they are considered to be on the far right.

The Dublin Regulation, or Dublin III is often thought to mean that an Asylum seeker has to apply for refuge in the first European country they arrive at.

This is not always the case.

The Dublin III regulation aims to identify the most appropriate country for that asylum seeker to be processed. The very first criteria is whether that asylum seeker has family in another EU country, or has family who are already having an asylum application being processed in another Dublin member country.

It's possible a refugee could get on a plane from Syria to Shannon directly (if there was such a flight) and immediately claim Asylum, he may then be moved to France for processing if his family are already there and have started their application in France

The 2nd criteria is if the applicant has previously lived or worked in another 'Dublin Member' country

after thar, there is an agreement to move an asylum application another Dublin Member country where they had their fingerprints taken