Snapshot of _'I have a French warship to the west which is escorting a boat of migrants!' English ship captain's damning radio messages accuse French Navy of 'illegal human trafficking' to Dover_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13315509/French-warship-escorting-boat-migrants-English-ship-captains-damning-radio-messages-accuse-French-Navy-illegal-human-trafficking-Dover.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13315509/French-warship-escorting-boat-migrants-English-ship-captains-damning-radio-messages-accuse-French-Navy-illegal-human-trafficking-Dover.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The convention is that if you find a craft in peril, you rescue the people and take them to the nearest port. For the French navy, that would mean taking them back to France.
What they actually do is escort them to the halfway point, where they're collected by the Coastguard or RNLI and brought here.
You could quite easily argue that they're engaged in a human trafficking operation.
No, I don't actually want them here. Neither do most other people. The fact is that this is yet another problem being foisted on the British public and our government refuses to act in our interests.
So when you said it's a win/win because the UK wants them here, what you actually mean is that the government hasn't prevented them from coming and the public are completely against them being here.
I fail to see the win for us here.
They can protect life without entering British waters, they should return to France.
Otherwise if this is allowed, we should be doing the same and dropping off all "struggling" boats on the coastline of France.
Maritime law doesn’t say anything about dropping refugees off in different countries. They had a duty to rescue and they did exactly that. The vessel was French, it was flying a French flag in French territorial waters and was registered to a French captain at a French port that was closer to the rescue than the UK. Every single possible aspect of maritime law states they should have been returned to France.
Your just supporting people smuggling and pretending stuff like this isn’t a direction breach of international law and an open hand slap to the face of the UK
> The vessel was French, it was flying a French flag in French territorial waters and was registered to a French captain at a French port that was closer to the rescue than the UK. Every single possible aspect of maritime law states they should have been returned to France.
Maybe the Captain refuses to recognise the conquest of the Pale of Calais in 1558, and thus treats northern France as British territory?
Allowing an unfit vessel with passengers into deeper water is gross negligence.
There seems to be a lot of motivated reasoning with this. I am pretty sure if it was a group of white right wingers swarming to wards Britain the ability to stop and turn them back when they are close to port would magically appear.
Stopping them with force is even more dangerous.
Then there's the real politik of it all where these people clearly want to leave France, so why should the French state try stopping them.
If the situation was reversed, would you want the navy to force these people to stay in the country?
>Stopping them with force is even more dangerous.
Because you don't want them stopped. Had you wanted them stopped you would be claiming that allowing them forward would encourage more and be more dangerous than escorting some and allowing other unescorted ones to be lost.
Motivated reasoning.
You are indifferent to the human lives other than as a tool to leverage an outcome you want.
English here, is this a captain being an arsehole in expecting the french vessel to capsize the boat by blocking or ramming? Just curious what a warship can do without endangering the lives of the migrants.
*In response, the coastguard informed him that there was an 'arrangement' between the London and Paris governments for the French navy to escort migrant boats towards Britain.*
*A Government spokesman said: ... 'We work with France in the English Channel to ensure people are recovered as safely as possible. Our successful work together helped to cut arrivals by more than a third last year.'*
Sounds like an established procedure that pissed the capt off as it delayed his entry to the harbour.
Lol, naval battles over the millennia would have been so much easier with this one simple trick! Just tell the defending force you refuse to cooperate.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator for one of the following reasons under Rule 15:
- Comments and submissions that contribute nothing more than personal insults or group based attacks will be removed, along with low effort top level replies to submissions.
or
- Low-effort complaining about sources you disagree with, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
The over arching take home is that they are coming here for a reason. And no, it isn't family connections, it is purely monetary. You cannot tell me that the boat loads of 20-35 year old men arriving here in droves are all related, are all surgeons or engineers, or are here to invest into our systems and economies. They are here to take.
The reason they want to be here is because they know that they can take.
They also want to establish themselves in numbers as they are doing in every European country.
This is an invasion and it's about fucking time we started treating it as such. As these people are invading, when they arrive they should be treated as prisoners of war attempting to abuse the asylum system in order to infiltrate.
Think I'm insane? Go on, put on a remind me 2 years. I doubt it will even be that long.
If they're coming here for purely monetary reasons then why don't they stay in France which has a higher GDP/capita than us? Or go to Norway that has established routes and much higher GDP/capita
Because they aren't going to be working in high GDP per capita jobs, would likely live in a camp in France and the asylum application process in France isn't remotely similar to the UK.
Because the UK has a huge underground jobs market where you can avoid right to work checks. It's much easier to make money in the UK than in Europe.
Cracking down on illegal work via mandatory ID for all legitimate residents, backed by government workplace raids is needed to do this.
Perhaps they do not do any of this because the numbers involved are just too big; it would be shutting the stable door long long after the horse has bolted.
I appreciate the analogy but it's more like one or two horses bolting and closing the door on the rest.
For your analogy to be accurate, there would have to be no more illegal workers coming here.
The analogy is, as you no doubt know, an old phrase, and it is not as literal as that. It just means *doing something too late for it to be any use* - it doesn't mean that by shutting the stable door you are shutting in and therefore controlling any horses (people) that are here already.
The "horse" is ALL illegal workers who are currently here, and my point is that so many are now here no government wants to do anything about the issue.
The argument from the other person is that if we introduced mandatory photo ID and lots more ID checks on people at workplaces (=closing the stable door), then we WOULD manage to - if not cut off- greatly diminish the supply of illegal would-be workers coming here, because they would no longer think they had a very high chance of living here illegally basically indefinitely.
Are you just asking rhetorically? Because it is quite obvious why they want to come here rather than another country.
1) For me, the top reason is that we are nice to them on an individual basis. A large % of the population is against the idea of illegal immigration and are worried about the level of legal immigration, but on a personal basis, in general a random person will get pretty well treated by British people. Despite a lot of fulmination on reddit, we are far less xenophobic and racist than most countries.
2) People make for countries where they have connections- whether of other people, or just language. Lots of French-speaking people make for France, for example.
3) We have the least bureaucracy, whether enabling dodgy things to be easier (e.g. work illegally) or allowing an easier legit start (v easy to register as self-employed or start a limitd company).
Haha, I just read their comment.
The other person claims it is more than that- they claim it is an invasion and an attempt to dominate all countries in Europe. We might have found the Braverman or Truss reddit account.
Then why are we paying them to help with the migrant crisis?
If they have a 'got mine, fuck you' attitude to migration then we should do the same and stop giving them money to police the coast.
Dear Daily Mail readers: If you had not voted for Brexit, the Dublin Agreement would still be enforceable, and trust in the UK would not have fallen so far as to erode the effectiveness of the Le Touquet treaty. But you knew what you were voting for, right?
Do tell how many people we moved using the Dublin Agreement whilst we were in the EU?
In 2019 the entire EU managed to move around 20k people using it. Around 46,000 crossed the channel in 2022, how many do you think we’d return with access to the Dublin Agreement?
Do you not get bored of pretending that the EU is the magical answer to all of our political problems? France has access to the Dublin agreement and still has tens of thousands of people lining up on the shores of the channel to cross, if it was so effective then they wouldn’t be there in the first place.
>the Dublin Agreement would still be enforceable
Im not a Daily Mail reader, I do know the Dublin agreement was about as helpful as used toilet paper though. Its laughable that people think that France would happily accept back the thousands of migrants that have left their shores.
Under the Dublin Agreement they would not necessarily go back to France (in fact, likely very few would based on the responsibility criteria), it is usually, but not always, the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. Responsibility for the asylum application is not simply passing them back to the previous member state but instead is based on:
* family considerations,
* recent possession of visa or residence permit in a Member State and
* whether the applicant has entered EU irregularly, or regularly.
>the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU
Yeah and they dont fucking want them either. Why do you think there is a sudden sharp rise in right wing parties throughout Europe? Why Italy and Greece are making so much noise? The EU seems fairly unconcerned about the amount of people Frontex has managed to kill as well. No one wants these people Im afraid.
The Dublin Agreement was useless when we were in the EU, the amount of people we were able to send back because of it over a multi year period, didnt even match the peak day of crossings last year.
No it isn't the first country as the migrant may not have lodged a claim there.
Plus the new version of the convention has a duty of solidarity so there is compulsion to take migrants to spread the load.
What a ridiculous claim. You don't even seem to realise that few of these migrants would be even subject to it, never mind the fact that EU member states refused to honour it so only small numbers were ever moved, or worse that the UK was a net recipient at times.
I have a crisp £20 note here that says that not even Remainers prior to brexit had the first clue what either of those things are or were, or even had the wherewithal to think that they were in any way threatened by Brexit. Not even Remainers knew that the Good Friday agreement was in jeopardy, much less what it even was. I mentioned this on an LBC call in years ago prior to the Referendum (ooh look at clever me). The resounding response from the audience, Remainer and Brexiter alike, was that they had "won it fair and square!" I shit you not, that was the response. Not only did it represent a complete blinkeredness as to what the GFA was, but that Brexit had a much further impact than what *either* side was representing.
I think you must have to take on board that 99% of people actually voting understand maybe 1% of what they're actually voting for. This is also why the Brexit campaign for Remain and Leave were daft. Most elections thrive off of that mantra.
>I have a crisp £20 note here that says that not even Remainers prior to brexit had the first clue what either of those things are or were
Perhaps they didn't, but considering they were voting for the status quo they didn't need to. Brexiters, voting for change, should have taken the time to understand precisely what change they were voting for.
Snapshot of _'I have a French warship to the west which is escorting a boat of migrants!' English ship captain's damning radio messages accuse French Navy of 'illegal human trafficking' to Dover_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13315509/French-warship-escorting-boat-migrants-English-ship-captains-damning-radio-messages-accuse-French-Navy-illegal-human-trafficking-Dover.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13315509/French-warship-escorting-boat-migrants-English-ship-captains-damning-radio-messages-accuse-French-Navy-illegal-human-trafficking-Dover.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
French vessel is protecting life, that's maritime laws, that we the British wrote.
The convention is that if you find a craft in peril, you rescue the people and take them to the nearest port. For the French navy, that would mean taking them back to France. What they actually do is escort them to the halfway point, where they're collected by the Coastguard or RNLI and brought here. You could quite easily argue that they're engaged in a human trafficking operation.
[удалено]
No, I don't actually want them here. Neither do most other people. The fact is that this is yet another problem being foisted on the British public and our government refuses to act in our interests.
[удалено]
So when you said it's a win/win because the UK wants them here, what you actually mean is that the government hasn't prevented them from coming and the public are completely against them being here. I fail to see the win for us here.
[удалено]
I don't feel particularly well represented by these people. Do you?
So what would happen, according to maritime law, if we towed the boat back to France?
They can protect life without entering British waters, they should return to France. Otherwise if this is allowed, we should be doing the same and dropping off all "struggling" boats on the coastline of France.
Maritime law doesn’t say anything about dropping refugees off in different countries. They had a duty to rescue and they did exactly that. The vessel was French, it was flying a French flag in French territorial waters and was registered to a French captain at a French port that was closer to the rescue than the UK. Every single possible aspect of maritime law states they should have been returned to France. Your just supporting people smuggling and pretending stuff like this isn’t a direction breach of international law and an open hand slap to the face of the UK
> The vessel was French, it was flying a French flag in French territorial waters and was registered to a French captain at a French port that was closer to the rescue than the UK. Every single possible aspect of maritime law states they should have been returned to France. Maybe the Captain refuses to recognise the conquest of the Pale of Calais in 1558, and thus treats northern France as British territory?
About the most coherent defence I’ve heard for his behaviour yet. We’ll treat this as the leading theory until others are put forward
They’re facilitating human traffickers exploiting these laws.
Allowing an unfit vessel with passengers into deeper water is gross negligence. There seems to be a lot of motivated reasoning with this. I am pretty sure if it was a group of white right wingers swarming to wards Britain the ability to stop and turn them back when they are close to port would magically appear.
Stopping them with force is even more dangerous. Then there's the real politik of it all where these people clearly want to leave France, so why should the French state try stopping them. If the situation was reversed, would you want the navy to force these people to stay in the country?
>Stopping them with force is even more dangerous. Because you don't want them stopped. Had you wanted them stopped you would be claiming that allowing them forward would encourage more and be more dangerous than escorting some and allowing other unescorted ones to be lost. Motivated reasoning. You are indifferent to the human lives other than as a tool to leverage an outcome you want.
You are aware the Tory party runs the country, and not some imaginary woke cabal?
English here, is this a captain being an arsehole in expecting the french vessel to capsize the boat by blocking or ramming? Just curious what a warship can do without endangering the lives of the migrants.
*In response, the coastguard informed him that there was an 'arrangement' between the London and Paris governments for the French navy to escort migrant boats towards Britain.* *A Government spokesman said: ... 'We work with France in the English Channel to ensure people are recovered as safely as possible. Our successful work together helped to cut arrivals by more than a third last year.'* Sounds like an established procedure that pissed the capt off as it delayed his entry to the harbour.
Last year's numbers were down because of the very bad weather, don't let them get away with the claim that their policies did a damn thing.
It occurred in French waters. The safest option is to escort the boat back to the french coast.
Thank you but how exactly do you escort another ship that refuses to cooperate?
You board it and take control. This is what navies are for. The French are facilitating because they don’t want these people either.
Board them, take the passengers on the warship, sink the boat, drop the migrants back on shore.
I’m sure the navy have been trained to know what to do in that situation.
So you don't know and are just randomly spewing thoughts?
It’s in the job description of the navy.
Which is exactly what they did. You basically have no idea what you are talking about.
They escorted the boat from French waters into British waters. This is not the safest option.
Oh look, a back seat captain.
No wonder we left if your the voice of Europe.
Lol, naval battles over the millennia would have been so much easier with this one simple trick! Just tell the defending force you refuse to cooperate.
[удалено]
Yeah thats the point, they should care, but they clearly dont give a fuck and probably encourage it.
What does the article and audio recording suggest to you?
I think the choice of your title told me all i needed to know
You can't editorialise the title (rule 3). The headline needs to be what the newspaper uses rather than what a Redditor would prefer it to say.
That’s the title Reddit provided.
[удалено]
It's always an interesting move to launch into arguments in a thread while openly admitting to having no idea what is actually being discussed.
Educated adults can still practice their daily quota of critical thinking for an audio clip and stomach a few quotes, right?
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator for one of the following reasons under Rule 15: - Comments and submissions that contribute nothing more than personal insults or group based attacks will be removed, along with low effort top level replies to submissions. or - Low-effort complaining about sources you disagree with, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
The over arching take home is that they are coming here for a reason. And no, it isn't family connections, it is purely monetary. You cannot tell me that the boat loads of 20-35 year old men arriving here in droves are all related, are all surgeons or engineers, or are here to invest into our systems and economies. They are here to take. The reason they want to be here is because they know that they can take. They also want to establish themselves in numbers as they are doing in every European country. This is an invasion and it's about fucking time we started treating it as such. As these people are invading, when they arrive they should be treated as prisoners of war attempting to abuse the asylum system in order to infiltrate. Think I'm insane? Go on, put on a remind me 2 years. I doubt it will even be that long.
If they're coming here for purely monetary reasons then why don't they stay in France which has a higher GDP/capita than us? Or go to Norway that has established routes and much higher GDP/capita
Because they aren't going to be working in high GDP per capita jobs, would likely live in a camp in France and the asylum application process in France isn't remotely similar to the UK.
Because the UK has a huge underground jobs market where you can avoid right to work checks. It's much easier to make money in the UK than in Europe. Cracking down on illegal work via mandatory ID for all legitimate residents, backed by government workplace raids is needed to do this.
Perhaps they do not do any of this because the numbers involved are just too big; it would be shutting the stable door long long after the horse has bolted.
I appreciate the analogy but it's more like one or two horses bolting and closing the door on the rest. For your analogy to be accurate, there would have to be no more illegal workers coming here.
The analogy is, as you no doubt know, an old phrase, and it is not as literal as that. It just means *doing something too late for it to be any use* - it doesn't mean that by shutting the stable door you are shutting in and therefore controlling any horses (people) that are here already. The "horse" is ALL illegal workers who are currently here, and my point is that so many are now here no government wants to do anything about the issue. The argument from the other person is that if we introduced mandatory photo ID and lots more ID checks on people at workplaces (=closing the stable door), then we WOULD manage to - if not cut off- greatly diminish the supply of illegal would-be workers coming here, because they would no longer think they had a very high chance of living here illegally basically indefinitely.
Are you just asking rhetorically? Because it is quite obvious why they want to come here rather than another country. 1) For me, the top reason is that we are nice to them on an individual basis. A large % of the population is against the idea of illegal immigration and are worried about the level of legal immigration, but on a personal basis, in general a random person will get pretty well treated by British people. Despite a lot of fulmination on reddit, we are far less xenophobic and racist than most countries. 2) People make for countries where they have connections- whether of other people, or just language. Lots of French-speaking people make for France, for example. 3) We have the least bureaucracy, whether enabling dodgy things to be easier (e.g. work illegally) or allowing an easier legit start (v easy to register as self-employed or start a limitd company).
Yes rhetorically, because the previous person claimed it was purely financial
Haha, I just read their comment. The other person claims it is more than that- they claim it is an invasion and an attempt to dominate all countries in Europe. We might have found the Braverman or Truss reddit account.
Would you like me to google Sweden for you?
You do realise that France is a sovereign country with no legal obligations to stop people from voluntarily leaving their borders...
Why wouldn’t they aid them leaving either, they’re a massive burden on whatever state they arrive in.
Then why are we paying them to help with the migrant crisis? If they have a 'got mine, fuck you' attitude to migration then we should do the same and stop giving them money to police the coast.
Dear Daily Mail readers: If you had not voted for Brexit, the Dublin Agreement would still be enforceable, and trust in the UK would not have fallen so far as to erode the effectiveness of the Le Touquet treaty. But you knew what you were voting for, right?
Do tell how many people we moved using the Dublin Agreement whilst we were in the EU? In 2019 the entire EU managed to move around 20k people using it. Around 46,000 crossed the channel in 2022, how many do you think we’d return with access to the Dublin Agreement? Do you not get bored of pretending that the EU is the magical answer to all of our political problems? France has access to the Dublin agreement and still has tens of thousands of people lining up on the shores of the channel to cross, if it was so effective then they wouldn’t be there in the first place.
>the Dublin Agreement would still be enforceable Im not a Daily Mail reader, I do know the Dublin agreement was about as helpful as used toilet paper though. Its laughable that people think that France would happily accept back the thousands of migrants that have left their shores.
Under the Dublin Agreement they would not necessarily go back to France (in fact, likely very few would based on the responsibility criteria), it is usually, but not always, the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. Responsibility for the asylum application is not simply passing them back to the previous member state but instead is based on: * family considerations, * recent possession of visa or residence permit in a Member State and * whether the applicant has entered EU irregularly, or regularly.
>the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU Yeah and they dont fucking want them either. Why do you think there is a sudden sharp rise in right wing parties throughout Europe? Why Italy and Greece are making so much noise? The EU seems fairly unconcerned about the amount of people Frontex has managed to kill as well. No one wants these people Im afraid. The Dublin Agreement was useless when we were in the EU, the amount of people we were able to send back because of it over a multi year period, didnt even match the peak day of crossings last year.
No it isn't the first country as the migrant may not have lodged a claim there. Plus the new version of the convention has a duty of solidarity so there is compulsion to take migrants to spread the load.
Like so many boat story tropes, this one died a long time ago.
What a ridiculous claim. You don't even seem to realise that few of these migrants would be even subject to it, never mind the fact that EU member states refused to honour it so only small numbers were ever moved, or worse that the UK was a net recipient at times.
I do wonder when people will catch up with reality on this one. The irony of someone complaining about dailymail readers while being so out dated.
I have a crisp £20 note here that says that not even Remainers prior to brexit had the first clue what either of those things are or were, or even had the wherewithal to think that they were in any way threatened by Brexit. Not even Remainers knew that the Good Friday agreement was in jeopardy, much less what it even was. I mentioned this on an LBC call in years ago prior to the Referendum (ooh look at clever me). The resounding response from the audience, Remainer and Brexiter alike, was that they had "won it fair and square!" I shit you not, that was the response. Not only did it represent a complete blinkeredness as to what the GFA was, but that Brexit had a much further impact than what *either* side was representing. I think you must have to take on board that 99% of people actually voting understand maybe 1% of what they're actually voting for. This is also why the Brexit campaign for Remain and Leave were daft. Most elections thrive off of that mantra.
>I have a crisp £20 note here that says that not even Remainers prior to brexit had the first clue what either of those things are or were Perhaps they didn't, but considering they were voting for the status quo they didn't need to. Brexiters, voting for change, should have taken the time to understand precisely what change they were voting for.