Is France Correct?

300,000 vs 1.2m. Not going too well for you this argument. Not that legal migration is relevant.

The fact remains more people were granted asylum in the U.K. than France and it’s been like that for a while.
You are getting yourself all confused.
The figures I gave, for France, were for successful applications.
It is nonsense to argue that previous applications are included. if there were previous applications, and they reapplied, it's obvious to any normal person that the original application was not successful, hence the reapplication. :rolleyes:
We are discussing successful applications only, remember.
So my earlier statement was correct, France takes more asylum seekers than UK.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
300,000 vs 1.2m. Not going too well for you this argument.
No-one ever claimed that France takes more legal migration than UK.
So the 'stop the boats' addresses a tiny proportion of the migration to UK, yet it has the focus of the government, and the racists, and everyone in between.
In 2023 there 30,000 boat people compared to 1,200,000 legal migration to UK.
Where do you think the focus should be? :rolleyes:

The fact remains more people were granted asylum in the U.K. than France and it’s been like that for a while.
Nonsense, 73,000 is more than 68,500 :rolleyes:
30,000 arriving by boat, the rest 38,500 arriving by other routes.
 
If you think it has merit. Can you explain how he will obtain policing jurisdiction in other countries and what will happen once we exceed our agreed quota?
That's the detail that would be worked through, if the UK agreed to the proposal.
It's pointless getting into the details while UK flatly refuses the opportunity.
 
Looks like the Rwanda plan might be back on the table, for Germany, and we paid for it. Well done Keir.
I initially thought Rwanda was an option. Looked at the long terms support offered but then Rwanda was asked how many - answer a few hundred. Later a nice slick video of a wonderful looking hostel for them was produced. Incapable of taking what was said at the time to be an entire plane load. :( Then it turned out that their legal checks were not adequate. The same may happen again if an attempt is made to use it.
 
Sponsored Links
According to Munroast, the asylum seekers are in tune with Labours thoughts. :ROFLMAO:
they will be aware of the change in political attitudes, and they will certainly be buoyed by the rwandan deal collapsing - and this will all have been greatly exaggerated by those selling them tickets for the small boat crossings,
Why do you think the migrants are ignorant of their destination.

You prefer that women and children attempt the channel crossings, instead of the men?? :mad:
I don't want any of them attempting the crossing - the men should be staying with their women children and elderly, its the mans role to fend for his family, or at least it is in our culture.
 
Looks like the Rwanda plan might be back on the table, for Germany, and we paid for it. Well done Keir.

It isn't that simple. It requires the EU to alter its CEAS.
In addition, Stamp suggested removing the so-called "connecting element" in the new Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which currently requires external asylum procedures to be conducted in countries where the asylum seeker has a social connection.
Your link.
Stamp, the German minister can ask.
 
That's the detail that would be worked through, if the UK agreed to the proposal.
It's pointless getting into the details while UK flatly refuses the opportunity.
Starmer's plot has nothing what so ever to do with quota. LOL In fact it;s not clear if the EU really uses it.
 
It is a fantastic idea, and if europe started doing it on mass, the migration would stop, deaths in the med and channel would also stop, and pressure of EU economies would also be lifted improving all of our lives.

Wouldn't that effectively be "foreign aid" - pumping money overseas - that the Right Wangers have previously, repeatedly, and vociferously ("We should look after our own! Charity begins at home!"-type posts) objected to? :unsure:
 
they will be aware of the change in political attitudes, and they will certainly be buoyed by the rwandan deal collapsing - and this will all have been greatly exaggerated by those selling them tickets for the small boat crossings,
Why do you think the migrants are ignorant of their destination.
Your opinion is at odds with those close to the asylum seekers on the ground.
However, the available evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of asylum policies tends to be small. This is because:

  • Policy has been found to not be the most important factor influencing changes in the number of people claiming asylum. Global developments, such as conflicts in countries of origin, appear statistically to be more important.
  • Prospective asylum seekers do not always know what policies will face them when they arrive. The information they have may be inaccurate or misleading and not particularly detailed.
  • Decisions about where and how to move depend not just on policy. Many other factors, such as the presence of family members, also play a role.
If you want to offer an opinion, you should ensure it's a well informed opinion. :rolleyes:


I don't want any of them attempting the crossing - the men should be staying with their women children and elderly, its the mans role to fend for his family, or at least it is in our culture.
So your argument about which member of the family cross the channel was just a hook on which to hang your bigotry. :rolleyes:
 
Wouldn't that effectively be "foreign aid" - pumping money overseas - that the Right Wangers have previously, repeatedly, and vociferously ("We should look after our own! Charity begins at home!"-type posts) objected to? :unsure:

A good chunk of foreign aid is used to pay for hotels in this country.
 
It is a fantastic idea, and if europe started doing it on mass, the migration would stop, deaths in the med and channel would also stop, and pressure of EU economies would also be lifted improving all of our lives.
It's a hope, but there's little hope of persuading their EU to change its refugee policy.
 
No - I asked YOU

and as usual you don't respond so I'll assume its 100 million
I have responded

I told you the U.K. does not have control over who leaves France in small boats…..so giving a number is utterly pointless.

If you cant understand that, I really I cant help you
 
A good chunk of foreign aid is used to pay for hotels in this country.
there wouldnt need to be so many in hotels if Tory govt hadnt got on with the job of processing the claims...........but they didnt want to do that, as they wanted to manufacture a crisis so they could use the populist playbook of blaming foreigners
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top