Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

German Jews, the Holocaust historian Steve Paulsson observes, were "treated as 'bogus asylum seekers' (because their lives were not yet in immediate danger) and as 'economic migrants' (because, having lost their means of livelihood, they would benefit economically by coming to Britain). In effect they were treated as immigrants who were trying to jump the queue, rather than as people in desperate need." Sound familiar?

A person crossing the English Channel from continental Europe is in desperate need of what?

Treatment of asylum seekers is turning into the zero sum politics of abortion in the US.

This is the silly argument a lot of anti refugee people use. They can only be economic migrants and not real refugees as France is safe.

International law states you have the right to claim asylum anywhere. That you might have been just as safe in France as Britain is neither here nor there. They have the right to claim in the UK and the government is trying to dodge its commitments.

[Admiral Yi]

This is the silly argument a lot of anti refugee people use. They can only be economic migrants and not real refugees as France is safe.

International law states you have the right to claim asylum anywhere. That you might have been just as safe in France as Britain is neither here nor there. They have the right to claim in the UK and the government is trying to dodge its commitments.

If my argument is so silly, why does your rebuttal have nothing to do with the point?

I may be wrong, but I think the last time we went through this the treaty itself says asylum seekers must present themselves at the border of the country they are seeking asylum in.  AFAIK a person in Afghanistan can't announce in the town square they are seeking asylum in the UK.

[Jacob]

Yeah so they are crossing the channel to do so...?

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah so they are crossing the channel to do so...?

That is behavior that is more characteristic of an economic refugee than someone who is fleeing a threat to their person.

[Jacob]

Maybe, but it's not a rebuttal to Josq's point that asylum seekers are allowed to seek asylum where they please.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe, but it's not a rebuttal to Josq's point that asylum seekers are allowed to seek asylum where they please.

https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

They can seek all they want. 

[Sheilbh]

I'd imagining financing and ownership structures has a big impact.

In Denmark (looks like same family structure as England in that map) about 1 million people (out of 6) live in homes provided by non-profit housing societies. Most if not all of those are apartments.

Agreed - but that's why the UK is a bit weird on this. It sounds like Denmark has even more but the UK actually has an unusually large amount of social housing. Normally either councils or non-profit housing associations:


It's certainly really different than the US, Canada or Australia but ending up with similar issues. The reality is we just need to build more and do everything to make that easier.

Edit: Looking at it, it's only in the 2010s when there are more private renters than social renters, which is slightly surprising.

Her nastiness is absurd.

I agree - although that picture has been edited in a way that feels a little bit "it's okay if our side do it".

Although no-one has been sent and my suspicion is still that probably no-one will and that this £150 million project will have taken more court journalists to Rwanda than actual asylum seekers. And also disgraceful that it's an official trip but they only took the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Telegraph and GB News journalists who all produced content that would make Pravda blush. Again if they had any integrity they'd have refused to get on the plane unless the rest of the press were invited.

I may be wrong, but I think the last time we went through this the treaty itself says asylum seekers must present themselves at the border of the country they are seeking asylum in.  AFAIK a person in Afghanistan can't announce in the town square they are seeking asylum in the UK.

This is a large part of the problem. Effectively if you are Afghan - who may well have family connections in the UK, or have worked with UK forces in Afghanistan - the only route to getting asylum in the UK is to get here and then claim asylum. The formal resettlement routes such as for Afghans or Syrians effectively do not exist, similarly if you're, say, Iranian or Eritrean there is no lawful, regular (and safe) route to claim asylum in the UK.

We have routes that work for Ukrainians and Hong Kongers but basically everyone else has to arrive irregularly - from Colin Yeo an immigration and asylum barrister:


I think there is a morally consistent position of strict border control with a functioning lawful route for people to claim asylum without having to cross a border. It's not really mine but I think it hangs together. I don't think you can simultaneously have a fortress Britain style approach to the border and no real way for people to claim asylum.

And if you look at countries of origin they are primarily Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan which is why the vast majority of claims are accepted.

Until relatively recently the international system broadly worked. People could get their refugee status from the UN and would then be resettled by countries across the world - it's what happened with Hungarians after 1956, Vietnamese and Bangladeshis in the 70s. My understanding is it started to creak in the 90s and has since more or less broken down. But I think it's what the UK needs to go back to. I also suspect that if we did agree to resettle x number of people a year in collaboration with the UNHCR (as used to be the case) that mix wouldn't really change it's just they wouldn't have had to risk their lives twice to cross the Med and then the Channel to get here.

Someone should call her a nazi.

They really have been. Photoshopping that onto pictures of Auschwitz etc.

Edit: And I think I broadly agree with James Ball's take on that:

James Ball
@jamesrbuk
It is absolutely telling of a certain corner of FBPE Twitter that they can take a disastrous pic of the Home Secretary and somehow turn it into a grotesquely offensive own goal of a meme.

[Grey Fox]

Maybe, but it's not a rebuttal to Josq's point that asylum seekers are allowed to seek asylum where they please.

https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

They can seek all they want. 

Unless crossing the northern border. An entire article conveniently ignoring that fact.

[Sheilbh]

Separately update on the Met. Good. I suspect the more radical options will be necessary in the end:

'Toxic' Met faces being broken up
Force given ultimatum to fix widespread failings
Fiona Hamilton, Crime and Security Editor | Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor | Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Monday March 20 2023, 12.01am, The Times

Britain's biggest police force faces being broken up if it does not rapidly overhaul a toxic culture that will be exposed in an independent report tomorrow, The Times has learnt.

Baroness Casey of Blackstock's excoriating review — ordered after Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by the serving Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens in 2021 — found institutional problems of sexism, racism and homophobia.

Casey is expected to detail a culture of bullying, officers being placed under unbearable work pressure and a failure of the Met's leadership to get to grips with a series of misconduct scandals.

Whitehall sources said that the 300-page report was "do or die" for the Met, revealing that Casey had made a series of hard-hitting recommendations with the requirement that progress be monitored by a new oversight board, led by the mayor of London. They said the option was left open for more radical reform, including structural changes, if a drastic overhaul did not occur.

There have long been calls for more specialist areas, such as the national counter-terrorism command, to be split off and subsumed by the National Crime Agency to allow the Met to get to grips with policing London.

One source said "nothing is off the table" in the long term but added that it was crucial to give Sir Mark Rowley, who took over as the Met commissioner in September, time for reforms.

Casey is understood to have uncovered widespread failings in every department she examined, including the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command. She will recommend that the unit, in which Couzens and the serial sex offender David Carrick both served, be "effectively disbanded".

Rowley has promised to restore public trust with a series of measures including overhauling professional standards, re-vetting officers and investigating again anyone previously accused of sexual or domestic violence.

Yesterday Suella Braverman, the home secretary, pledged to make it easier for Rowley and other chief constables to sack rogue officers, adding: "Ultimately we need to ensure that all standards are raised and the Met commissioner is really serious about achieving that goal."

Dame Lynne Owens, Rowley's deputy, said she had seen the report and "for those of us who care our emotional response will be raw". She added: "This is an opportunity for the many outstanding officers and staff to work with communities, to reset where needed."

The Met leadership is braced for the worst assessment since the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The Macpherson report declared in 1999 that policing was institutionally racist. Casey is expected to conclude that many discrimination issues have still not been addressed.

She is also expected to criticise the approach by the Met leadership, which was accused in a 2021 independent report on the unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan of putting the force's reputation before addressing failings.

Dame Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner who resigned last year after it was revealed that officers at Charing Cross police station had used WhatsApp to joke about raping colleagues and killing black children, has already defended her record.

Writing to The Sunday Times she said she spent her "entire service" challenging racism, sexism and discrimination in any form and insisted on high professional standards. She added: "I am sure Baroness Casey will fearlessly shine a strong light on some lessons that can be learned and some big challenges to be faced."

Casey is expected to reveal more detail of women being failed after reporting sexual violence by police officers.

Fresh concern has been raised about the force's approach after it emerged that nearly 150 Met officers accused of sexual violence or domestic abuse have been allowed to continue working as normal, without any restrictions, while they are being investigated. The Liberal Democrats, who revealed the figures obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, said it was a betrayal of alleged victims for those officers to be working like it was "business as usual".

According to figures released this month, there are 548 Met officers under investigation for alleged sexual wrongdoing or domestic violence. Of these 144 were left on "normal duties", 236 were placed on restricted duties, 71 were suspended and 97 had left the force. The FOI revealed that a total 39 officers were accused of both sexual and domestic abuse.

The Lib Dems said that the decision to leave officers on normal duties was "horrifying". Wendy Chamberlain, a Lib Dem MP and former police officer, said: "The fact that it's business as usual for dozens of officers under investigation for sexual abuse is a betrayal of survivors everywhere.

"Violence against women and girls has no place in our society, not least in the police force that is meant to keep us all safe. We need swift action and proper answers from the Met about how they determined which officers should be allowed to continue working as normal."

The Met did not respond to queries about the figures.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless crossing the northern border. An entire article conveniently ignoring that fact.

Please explain.

[Grey Fox]

Unless crossing the northern border. An entire article conveniently ignoring that fact.

Please explain.

We have an something called the Safe Third Country agreement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Safe_Third_Country_Agreement

That basically states that refugees must claim asylum in the 1st country they reached between us 2.

It's why there's been 39 000 illegal crossing in 2022 at a road called Roxham between NY and Quebec as people  look to circumvent the rules.

[Tamas]

I am still having trouble buying the "it's just for decoration" angle.



Why would anyone do that to themselves for "decoration"? Especially since in this property and all others I have seen, none of the backyard-facing windows have them.

[HVC]

I am still having trouble buying the "it's just for decoration" angle.



Why would anyone do that to themselves for "decoration"? Especially since in this property and all others I have seen, none of the backyard-facing windows have them.

You can't show off to the backyard decorations are for others to admire. These have 0 security value.

[Tamas]

It's just stupid then.

[Josquius]

I think its the make the house look more old-timey, historic windows being that way out of necessity as small rectangles of glass in a lead frame were so much cheaper than a giant sheet.

Which, when you live in a 16th century house, is fair enough... but when people are doing it on houses obviously built in 1963....