“Refugees Welcome” – two cyclists are creating the world’s biggest piece of GPS art in charity ride across southern England

I have asked for you to explain so I'm clearly not content in my ignorance.

From my understanding of the links you've posted it would be entirely legal to safely return a boat to French soil.

Please explain why this is not the case?

If the fact that the current system is 'legal' helps to assuage your conscience so be it. I refuse to support a system that results in the unnecessary deaths of children. You clearly have no such qualms.

I haven't listened to the Podcast li9nks from later, but from what I gather we can only send them back to the French half of the channel and our boats wouldn't be going to the ports with them to ensure safe return. So at the narrowest points we would be stopping people 10-11 miles out to see and telling them to turn around. I expect they will also be alerting French ships to come and pick them up instead. 

I believe the idea of having a place in Europe to apply for sanctuary is the idea wanted by opponents of this new "compasionate" Patel plan all along. Unfortunately I expect though there is alot of Politics in having such a place on foreign soil including who will be paying for housing and feeding whilst they will be processed AND what happens when inevitably the claim fails. 

As for why come to UK instead of elsewhere, maybe with some of it the issue is language. English is the most spoken language in the world (Mandarin is first / second depending where you look but I expect as a second language, English tops that). So I expect most can already communicate well enough and with most of the other native speaking English countries too far away to get to, due to the size of the Oceans, the UK is the target. 

I can appreciate that the language provides an additional factor but, honestly, if I had a choice between learning to speak French fluently or loading my children onto a dinghy and setting off across the channel I know which I'd choose.

Realistically, we can only end the channel crossings completely by cooperating with France and other EU nations.

It's in the best interests of everybody involved, especially the refugees, but it hasn't happened so far and I'm sceptical it will anytime soon.

Rich_cb wrote:

I have asked for you to explain so I'm clearly not content in my ignorance. From my understanding of the links you've posted it would be entirely legal to safely return a boat to French soil. Please explain why this is not the case? If the fact that the current system is 'legal' helps to assuage your conscience so be it. I refuse to support a system that results in the unnecessary deaths of children. You clearly have no such qualms.

Ah dear. Hopefully others have helped to educate you.

I still haven't seen an explanation of how you are trying to prevent the deaths of the children you are convinced are happening other than just posting on a cycling forum. 

Surely it could not be the case that you don't actually care, haven't done anything about the issue and have just dug yourself into such a counterfactual rhetorical hole you have no way of getting out and can only flail wildly while repeating "you don't care about drowning children?"

Maybe I'm a cynic but I generally find that when somebody won't provide the evidence/explanation for their position it's usually because they can't.

I'd be delighted to have my cynicism challenged of course.

As for your ludicrous question, as I'm not a member of the Coastguard/Navy/RNLI/Government I'm not sure what I can directly do to prevent drownings.

I can argue in favour of a political solution that will reduce the drownings and that's what I'm doing.

Rich_cb wrote:

Maybe I'm a cynic but I generally find that when somebody won't provide the evidence/explanation for their position it's usually because they can't. I'd be delighted to have my cynicism challenged of course. As for your ludicrous question, as I'm not a member of the Coastguard/Navy/RNLI/Government I'm not sure what I can directly do to prevent drownings. I can argue in favour of a political solution that will reduce the drownings and that's what I'm doing.

I too may be a cynic but when I provide 3 links to articles explaining the legal situation your wilful ignorance is at this point tiresome.  The fact that you can't understand them is not my problem. The fact is you that have a different opinion to even the governments own lawyers - that it would only be possible to send boats back under an extremely limited set of circumstances. This is because most of the vessels crossing are not seaworthy and pushing them back rather than rescuing those on board would, shock horror, lead to more children drowning, which I believe you are opposed to, yes?

You seem to be ignoring my specific question.

Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil?

Your links suggest it would not be.

You seem determined not to answer my question. My cynicism remains strong.

If the vessels are not seaworthy then the best response would be for the French to intercept them as soon as possible and return them to French soil thereby shortening the time they are at risk. Alternatively they could be loaded on to a seaworthy vessel and then escorted to French soil. Would this be illegal?

The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there's an imminent risk of sinking.

I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

Rich_cb wrote:

You seem to be ignoring my specific question. Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil? Your links suggest it would not be. You seem determined not to answer my question. My cynicism remains strong. If the vessels are not seaworthy then the best response would be for the French to intercept them as soon as possible and return them to French soil thereby shortening the time they are at risk. Alternatively they could be loaded on to a seaworthy vessel and then escorted to French soil. Would this be illegal? The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there's an imminent risk of sinking. I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

https://theconversation.com/turning-back-migrant-boats-what-does-the-int...
 

I've posted this before and it explains the legalities.  Everyone reading this thread can read this article and see that you are wrong.  At this point you are just embarrassing yourself. 
 

The articles don't answer my question.

The articles talk about turning a ship around and leaving it return to land under its own power.

That is not my question.

My question is: Is it legal to escort a (seaworthy) ship back to French soil?

Anyone on this thread can see that I have asked this question multiple times.

You have consistently refused to answer it.

Rich_cb wrote:

The articles don't answer my question. The articles talk about turning a ship around and leaving it return to land under its own power. That is not my question. My question is: Is it legal to escort a (seaworthy) ship back to French soil? Anyone on this thread can see that I have asked this question multiple times. You have consistently refused to answer it.

From the article 

"Beyond the law of the sea, when officials start to exercise effective control over another vessel at sea, by rescuing or physically towing boats back, human rights obligations come into play. 

Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, a case considered by the European Court of Human Rights, involved Italian authorities’ interception of migrants at sea, forcibly returning them to Libya. The court concluded that the applicants were under the “continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities” during the transfer, meaning Italy had an obligation to protect their human rights. 

Human rights at sea expert Sofia Galani also affirms that people in the territorial waters of a state are within its jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights, which the state must respect and protect.

Such rights would include giving people access to a procedure that determines their refugee status, and ensuring that there is no collective expulsion of people. In the Hirsi case, the court held that Italian authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not examining each applicant’s individual situation."

Which doesn't answer the question?

From my very first reply to you:

"You wouldn't be denying the people the right to claim asylum, you'd merely be taking them to the asylum centre in Europe to apply so there would be no breach of international human rights law. As you'd be taking them safely to the French shore you also wouldn't be violating any maritime laws about rendering assistance."

In that situation, would it be legal to transfer a (seaworthy) vessel to French soil?

Yes it does. If someone claims asylum you are not allowed to say "oh ok but we are going to deport you to a different country first lol"  If you were do you seriously think this government would have not tried that by now?

That's not what the article says. It says you cannot deny them asylum without assessing their case. You wouldn't be doing that.

If you established an asylum centre in another country then you'd be giving them the exact same rights of applying for asylum as if they were in the UK.

So how are you going to assess their case fully in the middle of the ocean before deperting them to another country? Because that is what you are doing. Once they are picked up by a UK vessel they are subject to UK law. You cannot deport an asylum seeker without due process. 

No, that is not what you are doing.

You are taking them to a UK asylum centre based in another country where they are eligible to apply for UK asylum.

You are required to assess each asylum case individually, there is no requirement for that to take place on the UK mainland.

You are also legally able to remove an asylum seeker to another country which has agreed to process their application.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-1...

Lolz

so how many of these "UK asylum seeker centers" in another country exist right now?  How, in international law, do you establish UK jurisdiction in France ?  Has France agreed to process these applications?  How is Dublin III looking right now?

The assessment of asylum seeker status HAS to take place before deportation. This is the law. You can't just make this stuff up Rich. 
 

P.S. Given your complete lack of knowledge of international law, disregard for human rights and approval of the Australian practice of paying human traffickers, you are Priti Patel in sock puppet form and I claim my £5

Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries.

It is perfectly possible to do so.

As long as each applicant is considered individually then it is legal.

You don't necessarily have to set up UK jurisdiction, you could reach an agreement with France to process a certain number of their asylum seekers through the UK system including any intercepted in the channel.

If you did want specific UK jurisdiction that again is possible. The channel tunnel being a prime example.

Rich_cb wrote:

Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries.

The ones where no journalist is allowed to visit, where Salvation Army workers have claimed that racism, beatings and sexual violence against inmates is commonplace, that have been condemned by the UN, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and Australia's own official Human Rights Commission, where suicide and self harm is so endemic that paramilitary police have had to be deployed in an attempt to prevent it? Not sure that really boosts your case...

It does if you understand the point that's being debated.

Rich_cb wrote:

It does if you understand the point that's being debated.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/australias-offshor...

I know you have issues with reading links, so I've quoted the most relevant part:

"Australia has “gotten away” with successive and continuing human rights violations because it has no constitutionally guaranteed charter of rights, nor any regional human rights treaty or court against or by which its conduct can be assessed. The UK, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, would not be able to evade its legal responsibilities in the same way."

Rich_cb wrote:

Australia runs asylum seeker processing centres in other countries. It is perfectly possible to do so. As long as each applicant is considered individually then it is legal. You don't necessarily have to set up UK jurisdiction, you could reach an agreement with France to process a certain number of their asylum seekers through the UK system including any intercepted in the channel. If you did want specific UK jurisdiction that again is possible. The channel tunnel being a prime example.

So you original question was why we could't just turn back boats with people on board in the English Channel.

This has been explained to you in terms of maritime and international law.

You have persisted with the idea that it is possible, but in order to justify your stance you have had to go to increasing more inventive imaginary solutions.

Just so we are clear, you agree that it is currently not possible, as things stand, to legally return the vast majority of people crossing the channel?

Even if the border force dress as clowns.  Or ninjas.  Or people are rescued by a spaceship.

Actually, I'm not sure about the spaceship.  You can have that one.  

Here's what we've established so far.

As confirmed by your most recent link, it is entirely legal to process asylum seekers 'off shore'.

Australia does just this. Among the criticisms of these camps (of which there are many) I've yet to see an argument that the actual processing of asylum claims offshore is illegal.

The criticisms of Australia's system relate to the treatment of asylum seekers in the centres and the refusal to accommodate those people with accepted claims as well as the return of failed asylum seekers to countries which are dangerous.

To be clear, I am not proposing that we emulate Australia in any of these areas. I am merely proposing that we process asylum seekers intercepted in the channel offshore.

This appears to be entirely compliant with the relevant international laws.

You have consistently failed to provide any evidence to the contrary which leads me to believe you don't have any and are simply refusing to admit this.

In the context of established off shore processing I asked if it was legal to safely return asylum seekers to French soil.

You have, again, failed to provide any evidence that this would be illegal.

All the links that you have provided state that an asylum seeker's case must be considered on an individual basis. None state that this consideration must take place in a specific location.

We know from the Australian experience that intercepting boats and either returning them to the country of origin or moving the occupants to an offshore facility leads to a dramatic reduction in drownings.

If we could ensure good conditions in the offshore facilities, that all accepted claims were immediately transferred to the UK and that no person would be returned to a dangerous country then, as far as I can see, such a system would be entirely compliant with international law.

We therefore have a viable alternative to the status quo which has the potential to save hundreds of people from drowning in the channel.

My question and my position has not changed since my very first reply to you (with the exception of clarifying that only seaworthy vessels would be returned).

Your continued avoidance of the question and desperate attempts to deflect (clowns/ninjas etc) merely confirm my initial cynicism about your motives.

Rich_cb wrote:

Here's what we've established so far. As confirmed by your most recent link, it is entirely legal to process asylum seekers 'off shore'. Australia does just this. Among the criticisms of these camps (of which there are many) I've yet to see an argument that the actual processing of asylum claims offshore is illegal. The criticisms of Australia's system relate to the treatment of asylum seekers in the centres and the refusal to accommodate those people with accepted claims as well as the return of failed asylum seekers to countries which are dangerous. To be clear, I am not proposing that we emulate Australia in any of these areas. I am merely proposing that we process asylum seekers intercepted in the channel offshore. This appears to be entirely compliant with the relevant international laws. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence to the contrary which leads me to believe you don't have any and are simply refusing to admit this. In the context of established off shore processing I asked if it was legal to safely return asylum seekers to French soil. You have, again, failed to provide any evidence that this would be illegal. All the links that you have provided state that an asylum seeker's case must be considered on an individual basis. None state that this consideration must take place in a specific location. We know from the Australian experience that intercepting boats and either returning them to the country of origin or moving the occupants to an offshore facility leads to a dramatic reduction in drownings. If we could ensure good conditions in the offshore facilities, that all accepted claims were immediately transferred to the UK and that no person would be returned to a dangerous country then, as far as I can see, such a system would be entirely compliant with international law. We therefore have a viable alternative to the status quo which has the potential to save hundreds of people from drowning in the channel. My question and my position has not changed since my very first reply to you (with the exception of clarifying that only seaworthy vessels would be returned). Your continued avoidance of the question and desperate attempts to deflect (clowns/ninjas etc) merely confirm my initial cynicism about your motives.

https://theconversation.com/uk-offshore-asylum-plan-is-just-another-way-...

edit - sorry I forgot you have an issue with reading articles - "At any rate, these plans are not compatible with international law and have been widely condemned by civil society and international organisations, including the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)."

If you have evidence to the contrary please supply it. 

Your own link provided earlier in the thread makes it clear it is possible to process asylum seekers offshore in a lawful way.

"For any offshore processing scheme to be lawful, the human rights and protection needs of all asylum seekers, refugees and migrants who encounter it must be respected."

From: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/australias-offshor...

From a link within your most recent link:
"They may be returned to where they have, or could have, sought asylum and could still access a fair procedure and receive humane treatment but doing so requires important safeguards"

Given your continual lectures about reading links it seems odd that you missed those important details.

In summary it is entirely legal to process asylum claims 'off shore'.

There will, of course, need to be safeguards in place but the policy of off shore processing together with plentiful safe, legal routes to UK asylum (as I advocated much earlier in the thread) can dramatically reduce channel crossings and therefore unnecessary deaths.

hi Priti, sorry, Rich

1.  If it is possible to process offshore asylum seekers legally, please name a case where this has been done successfully citing  the court judgement?

2.  Remind again which countries have agree to house your mythical processing centers where asylum seekers will be deported to?

3.  Remind me again whether you support the Australian model of paying people smugglers to participate in the return of asylum seekers?

4.  Remind me again what you think should happen to the majority of people on children crossing the channel in boats at the present time with regard to international and maritime law as it stands today?

Thanks

Nice deflections.

You've been proved wrong by your own links.

Accept it and move on.

Glad we agree on the centers that avoid the need for anyone even attempting to cross.

Well done on dogding the difficult questions.

Currently it would be illegal to return people to France on boats.

I will concede this could be done if:

1.  France agrees to build appropriate centers (not going to happen anytime soon)

2. Parliament agrees to build and finance them (this costs 50x more than processing the UK as per the Australian experience)

3.  The boats are seaworthy

4.   No human rights abuses occur at the hypothetical centers that have not been agreed to or built at the present time (unlikely considering the experience in Yarswood etc)

So the answer to your original question

Quote:

Would it be illegal to escort the (seaworthy) vessels to French soil?

Is still no.  Until all of the criteria above are fulfilled.

As I said in my earlier reply the UK government are currently in negotiations with France to fund the construction of migration centres.

What the outcome of these negotiations will be is obviously unclear at the moment but from what the papers are discussing they don't seem far off what I'm advocating.

If the boats are not seaworthy then a seaworthy vessel could be supplied, the Australians do just this.

I guess we now just have to wait and see.

Let's hope for an outcome that delivers far fewer drownings and a safer route to asylum for those in need.

Rich_cb wrote:

The evidence from Australia seems to suggest that turning ships back massively reduces drownings. They also practice the reloading of people onto seaworthy vessels if there's an imminent risk of sinking. I hope we get the same reduction in unnecessary deaths in the channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/un-human-rights-e...

Rich_cb wrote:

It's a very simple principle.

If we accept that it's impossible to save 100% of people crossing the channel from drowning then it it obvious that as the number of people attempting the crossing increases so do the number of drownings.

If you make the crossing more attractive then more people will engage in it and more people will die.

The policy of rescuing people from the channel and bringing them to the UK has led to over 300 deaths since 1999.

This is the policy you support.

I will not support a policy that leads to hundreds of deaths.

If that is "immoral" then I suggest you have an unusual set of moral principles.

If it is possible to safely collect boats and bring them to the UK shoreline then, obviously, it is also possible to safely collect boats and return them to the French shoreline.

Another part of your argument is therefore proven to be nonsense.

Once it becomes clear that crossing the channel by boat now has a much lower likelihood of success then the numbers doing so will drop and therefore the number of drownings.

This argument was examined on BBC R4 Today programme on 10 Sept. On their podcast it starts just after 1:51:51