The Reform policy wouldn’t survive the first capsizing of a dingy and the death of those onboard and anyone who thinks it would is not living in real world. You’d potentially have French and British naval craft in a standoff which could end up with shots being fired between NATO allies. The international outcry would be off the scale.
There is a way to stop it. That is to have buses waiting at Dover and when illegals step off the boat they would be herded on the bus taken to a military base and flown out to a 3rd country for processing with option of coming here not and never available. It wouldn’t take many flights to get the message across.
I just read the Fortress document and (mindful of your take on Reform as being policy-unserious) thought it was a pretty good document. It seemed to address some of the legal issues. The obvious weaknesses to me were the interaction with French soil (as you noted) and also the rather specious argument that the policy would be “protecting lives”.
I have to admit that the document was enough to make me think it would be worthwhile supporting Reform if they would at least take a crack at this. The variable would be if they have the political will to push through when their plan collides with real world friction.
On the issue of dumping migrants back on French soil I suspect their legal argument will be what is encapsulated in one cheeky line where you can practically hear Nige’s voice: “We’ll just be helping the French to carry out their obligations under our bilateral treaties with them.”
Heres the thing. The French are expected to apply maritime safety rules evenly.
Would the French authorities allow an inflatable dinghy loaded with French citizens from a beach into the Channel?
I think not.
Therefore the French are discriminating against migrants by providing a lower level of maritime safety standards compared to European peoples.
Under ECHR rules France would be hard pressed to justify their (in) action.
Under maritime safety regulations their excuses would be waived out of court.
The French may argue they don’t know when a dinghy is or is not compliant with international maritime safety law, but as they monitor the boats all the way to British waters and have emergency services available for rescue this is a bit of a stretch.
They have already decided that the boats aren’t safe by monitoring the inflatables.
Would the French stop a boat dangerously loaded with French people on board? I’m sure they would and having stopped the vessel would refuse to allow it onto the high seas
The French must be laughing in taking money from the UK subsidising the French border operations! Perhaps the RNLI can ask for the French taxpayer to pay for its services?
The UK government is spending our money like there’s an endless supply.
They should stop subsidising the French operation, refer France to the ECHR on their racist actions and to ITLOS under SOLAS/UNCLOS Art94 for ignoring safety at seas regulations.
Farage's leadership of UKIP, Brexit and now Reform is based on cosmetics and an absence of detailed thinking which is why he and anything he is involved with will fail that is assuming he even gets his hands on power which I don't believe he ever will.
The policy paper is extremely up to date and includes references to Ceuta (2026).
It did occur to me - and will occur to smugglers - that its legal framework would not cope a boat coming from North Africa, or any other Camp of the Saints scenario.
Russia is no threat but seeing as the U.K. is hell bent on proking the bear go right ahead he just might send a small hypersonic nuke as a wake up call and if it's in a Muslim enclave all the better less savages to fight in the upcoming civil war brought to you by your friendly World anihilalators.
Tell France that if it doesn't stop the outflow of illegals across the Channel then we consider ourselves at war with it. I don't care if the rest of the EU would be involved, ultimately not one country can put together a decent army/defence force (including us) but the message needs to be loud and clear.
All part of the agenda to bleed dry the British taxpayers so that suicide is a viable option.If as reform has reiterated if they military cannot secure the safety of its citizens then why do they exist at all?
It is weird. I have seen this happen with other people's comments on other substacks but never been able to figure what rule they broke or criterion was met. Perhaps it is just certain trigger words.
What makes it even odder is that it still seems to be possible to reply to such comments or like them.
The Reform policy wouldn’t survive the first capsizing of a dingy and the death of those onboard and anyone who thinks it would is not living in real world. You’d potentially have French and British naval craft in a standoff which could end up with shots being fired between NATO allies. The international outcry would be off the scale.
There is a way to stop it. That is to have buses waiting at Dover and when illegals step off the boat they would be herded on the bus taken to a military base and flown out to a 3rd country for processing with option of coming here not and never available. It wouldn’t take many flights to get the message across.
Probably marginally better than my suggestion of all out war with France above!
I just read the Fortress document and (mindful of your take on Reform as being policy-unserious) thought it was a pretty good document. It seemed to address some of the legal issues. The obvious weaknesses to me were the interaction with French soil (as you noted) and also the rather specious argument that the policy would be “protecting lives”.
I have to admit that the document was enough to make me think it would be worthwhile supporting Reform if they would at least take a crack at this. The variable would be if they have the political will to push through when their plan collides with real world friction.
On the issue of dumping migrants back on French soil I suspect their legal argument will be what is encapsulated in one cheeky line where you can practically hear Nige’s voice: “We’ll just be helping the French to carry out their obligations under our bilateral treaties with them.”
Heres the thing. The French are expected to apply maritime safety rules evenly.
Would the French authorities allow an inflatable dinghy loaded with French citizens from a beach into the Channel?
I think not.
Therefore the French are discriminating against migrants by providing a lower level of maritime safety standards compared to European peoples.
Under ECHR rules France would be hard pressed to justify their (in) action.
Under maritime safety regulations their excuses would be waived out of court.
The French may argue they don’t know when a dinghy is or is not compliant with international maritime safety law, but as they monitor the boats all the way to British waters and have emergency services available for rescue this is a bit of a stretch.
They have already decided that the boats aren’t safe by monitoring the inflatables.
Would the French stop a boat dangerously loaded with French people on board? I’m sure they would and having stopped the vessel would refuse to allow it onto the high seas
The French must be laughing in taking money from the UK subsidising the French border operations! Perhaps the RNLI can ask for the French taxpayer to pay for its services?
The UK government is spending our money like there’s an endless supply.
They should stop subsidising the French operation, refer France to the ECHR on their racist actions and to ITLOS under SOLAS/UNCLOS Art94 for ignoring safety at seas regulations.
Farage's leadership of UKIP, Brexit and now Reform is based on cosmetics and an absence of detailed thinking which is why he and anything he is involved with will fail that is assuming he even gets his hands on power which I don't believe he ever will.
The policy paper is extremely up to date and includes references to Ceuta (2026).
It did occur to me - and will occur to smugglers - that its legal framework would not cope a boat coming from North Africa, or any other Camp of the Saints scenario.
Stop all the funding through the NGOs good luck with that but it is the less painful solution but who has the power to accomplish this?
Russia is no threat but seeing as the U.K. is hell bent on proking the bear go right ahead he just might send a small hypersonic nuke as a wake up call and if it's in a Muslim enclave all the better less savages to fight in the upcoming civil war brought to you by your friendly World anihilalators.
😡🤬👿
Tell France that if it doesn't stop the outflow of illegals across the Channel then we consider ourselves at war with it. I don't care if the rest of the EU would be involved, ultimately not one country can put together a decent army/defence force (including us) but the message needs to be loud and clear.
All part of the agenda to bleed dry the British taxpayers so that suicide is a viable option.If as reform has reiterated if they military cannot secure the safety of its citizens then why do they exist at all?
Why is Paul Hopkins reply hidden?
It is weird. I have seen this happen with other people's comments on other substacks but never been able to figure what rule they broke or criterion was met. Perhaps it is just certain trigger words.
What makes it even odder is that it still seems to be possible to reply to such comments or like them.
How is it, we cannot with all our technology not give people, in poorer countries, working toilets and drains and clean water.
Surely, we should have been able to dobthis by now, with all these NGOs? What exactly are they doing with all the money that's been given?
We are, well were building warships and tanks, yet other people are dying from ebola.
I'm not a lefty but like Pete, I want some decent thought out policies that are joined up. They should all interconnect, nothing is separate.
Right now, we seem to he fighting language and losing.
When did we actually do?