Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

No, they can't. If they don't apply for asylum, they are expected to leave the Schengen Area immediately or face deportation. Those who have already decided that they would rather apply for asylum in the UK than the EU generally opt to leave the Schengen Area as quickly as they can. Like many travellers, though, their onward journeys are often subject to delay for one reason or another.

And yet you are arguing that the EU should, in fact, take steps to limit the number of migrants who would seek to claim asylum in the UK. More than a hint of having cake and eating it ...

They may well be coming to the attention of authorities at times (but by no means all the time). If they can show they are merely in transit and have no intention of remaining in that country or claiming asylum, then there is no issue. Immigration law says nothing about people who wish to 'leave' a country, they are normally perfectly free to do so.

We are not allowed talk about the UK in a UK thread now is it.

Anyone who thinks the UK leaving the EU was going to lead to more French crackdowns on boat crossings and not less is a moron.

Also anyone who thinks a system that forces the Mediterranean costal countries to take in and process all the refugees is going to be accepted is a moron.

Interesting comment here in the Irish Times from Philippe Sands an Anglo-French International Lawyer, and a man who has been very involved in the Chagos Islands campaign:

Brexit is the “single greatest act of self-harm that probably any country has done to itself in recent living memory”.

“I respect the decision taken, but it [Brexit] is an act of economic, diplomatic, political and legal lunacy. Brexit reflects, in my view, a British hubris, a sense in a small part of the community, mostly the older folk, of wanting to return to the halcyon days of empire when Britain was unshackled and could rule the world. It’s an absolute bloody nonsense and everybody knows it.”

Chagos, the NI protocol, the discussion of a Swiss-style agreement are, he believes, “a recognition of that which cannot yet be talked about openly, that Britain has cast itself into a wilderness and something will have to be done”. Change “will take time” but will come, he believes, predicting Britain will have reconnected with Europe within 10 years.

Do you have anything to actually add ?

So Britain is multi cultural because many cultures move there. Wow glad that was explained to us.

Also you seem to have a problem with Irish people talking about the UK but it's perfectly fine for you to "berate" the Irish about our country. If only Paddy would just shut and know their place.

There isn’t much point engaging with your either, any response of substance to your posts simply invites yet another strawman or other facile bit of goalpost-shifting whattaboutery.

The asylum seekers debate in the specific context of Brexit was done to death in these Brexit themed-threads, since before the 2016 referendum. Before dinghies came to the headlining fore, immigrants were Chunnel trains- and HGV- surfing for years, and there were similar noises from the Kippers and similar others about the Calais campslikewise for years. France and the UK put much of an end to that, while the UK was still an EU member state. But I’m old enough to remember those Farage posters.

Let’s just stop the pretence already. You just want easy solutions, provided by anyone else but England -never mind those responsible for the mess, who promised you that white anglo-saxon immigrant-free moon on a stick 6+ years ago- and you aren’t one little bit interested in understanding the sheer complexity of the problem in the first place, never mind discussing and debating it constructively.

No, no. It's important to understand that the EU rules about this don't impose any obligation at all on entrants to the EU about where they claim asylum. If they enter in country A and claim asylum in country B that's absolutely fine; they are doing nothing wrong. Until they claim, they are liable to deportation, but it is not a breach of any law to be liable to deportation. Nor are member states obliged to deport anyone liable to deportation; this is something they may do, not something they must do. And there is nothing wrong with travelling from country A to country B, within the Schengen zone.

What the EU rules regulate is how member states must respond to claims for asylum. Continuing the example above, when an application is made in country B, country B can either (a) handle the application itself, or (b) return the claimant to country A, for country A to handle the application. (There is some practical give-and-take about numbers of returns; there's a recognition that the system would break down if everyone was returned to Greece or Italy.)

It is wrong to think that the asylum seeker has an obligation to claim in Country A, or that Country A has an obligation to prevent the asylum seeker from travelling to Country B and applying there. EU law requires neither of these things.

Meanwhile, the UK has adopted a set of policies which strongly incentivise undocumented entry to the UK. You can't apply for asylum unless you are in the UK, but you can't get documentation to enter the UK if they think you might apply for asylum. So the only way to apply for asylum in the UK is to enter it undocumented. And, if you do succeed in doing that, the UK cannot return you to the first EU country which you entered, having voluntarily withdrawn from the arrangements for doing so. So if you don't want your claim processed in, say, Greece, your best bet is to head for the UK.

All three policy positions were adopted freely and unilaterally by the UK. Attempts to blame the EU for them, or to claim that the EU has some kind of responsibility to protect the UK from the wholly forseeable consequences of the UK's policy choices are pathetic; I expect most Britons are mortified to see them advanced. Of all the embarrassing aspects of Brexit Britain, this must be one of the most embarrassing.

You'd be surprised. Given the age gradient in the Brexit vote, which is steep, someone (was it John Curtice? Don't quote me on that) has estimated that through, ahem, demographic leakage, support from Brexit has been dropping at close to 1% a year since 2016. And that's before anyone changes their mind because, in the light of experience, they realise that Brexit wasn't such a crash-hot idea.

We're already at the position - in fact, we have been for about 18 months now - where a clear majority of the population recognises that Brexit was a mistake. But a significant chunk of that majority don't want to do anything about it, either because they are exhausted and depressed by the whole Brexit process and can't face any more of it, or because they think the error is not recoverable — the sweet, opt-out laden deal that the UK had as an EU member state is gone and is not coming back, and they don't want EU membership if the cost includes, e.g., giving up sterling.

In short, it's not so much English belligerence that sustains Brexit now - there's plenty of that about, but nothing like a majority - as English depression and misery. And I don't see that enduring for 50 years. In politics a generation is somewhere between 7 years and two parliaments - after that lapse of time, all triumphs and all disasters are history, and they have minimal effect on current voting patterns. Well within 10 years, it will become acceptable for a major political party to say "Our situation in Europe isn't serving us well. We need to change things." And the Labour party in particular would be mad not to say that. The considerations which stop them saying it now will have less and less traction as time passes.

A bit like this site and many posters when talking about Ireland.

Hahaha ya because church going is a sign of moral standing or kindness to fellow humans.