Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Notch7]

Until they claim asylum they are illegals and can be prosecuted for their immigration offences

they can claim asylum withins 5 seconds of being in ear shot of an English person

your argument is nonsense you are claiming they can be prosecuted for 5 seconds tops

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Reform are proposing to leave the ECHR. Assuming they do, what law do you think makes Push backs in the way I've described illegal?

That's not enough.
They'd have to repeal the UK Human Rights Act also.
Then they'd have the fall out of the Good Friday Agreement being trashed, to contend with.


What do you think the chances of that happening?

Even if they did achieve those issues, what do you think would happen when the order was given to Border Force o the RN, to enact push backs, bearing in mind that those services have already refused to participate in push backs.
And that's before the trial of the Greeks for causing deaths in the Med'.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Apart from that at least he had a go.

So he'll have learnt for his next term as POTUS?

 

[Deleted member 323070]

A dishonest lie.

You seem to do it a lot.

All lies are dishonest.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Push backs are legal

So you've claimed, incorrectly, many times, and been told many times that they're not legal.

We've discussed it over many, many pages, probably not for the first time.
And we'll probably discuss it over and over again some more yet.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It can - it happens daily all over the world.

Then get your boat immediately impounded, and the crew arrested, for people smuggling.

nonsense - you don't understand the rules.

It's in contravention of the ECHR, The UK Human Rights Act, UN Refugee Charter and UNCLOS.
Even if you could get any service to enact the policy.

4/4 wrong. well done

0/4, Back to school!

 

[Deleted member 323070]

In a genuine distress situation, a boat in distress typically does not require prior permission to land in a French port. However, it's crucial to report the boat's presence and undergo immigration and customs checks at the nearest designated port of entry

And get the boat impounded, and you arrested.
Well Done!

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Article 18, 24 and 98, UNCLOS plus SOLAS reg 33. says they must accept them.

The duty to rescue

There is a duty pursuant to international law for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea. This duty is based on a long-standing and strongly felt moral obligation among seafarers. This is stated, for example, in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 98 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Regulation V-33. All states recognize this duty.

One implication of this rule is that a state cannot legally prohibit its vessels from rescuing persons at sea: states must accept that their vessels engage in rescue operations. In the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), coastal states undertake the role to coordinate the SAR in respect of persons in specified areas (Article 2.3). There is a duty to organize such services (UNCLOS Article 98 and SOLAS, Regulation V-7). There are no provisions in the SAR convention that the particular state in charge of a specific area can direct foreign vessels whether to assist or not. Within the 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, the state has general jurisdiction on other grounds (including the right to direct vessels how to assist or not to assist), but this jurisdiction does not extend to ships in passage assisting other vessels (UNCLOS Articles 17-18).

If there is sufficient rescue boats completing a rescue, passing boats are hardly likely to insist on interfering.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Was there a distress call? Does the vessel require immediate assistance to avoid people drowning are people in the water? If so they must be rescued and can be taken back to France. If not, they can be forcibly refused entry to UK waters. ..

They can't.
why is Reform finding it necessary to exit the ECHR, if pushbacks are legal?

No it wont. A jet ski either side of the bow will render the steering input of the outboard completely useless. The vessel will be more stable than it was before.

You can't intentionally interfere witht he innocent passage of other boats. Check you UNCLOS regs.

There unions might have made a comment, but nothing stops a government issuing a tender to perform the service - prisons are privately run for example

Then you would have state sponsored pirates.

because it hasn't been done, makes it illegal - its a weak argument even by your standards.

It hasn't been done because it's illegal.
You are incapable of differentiating between cause and effect.

Nobody has attempted to assassinate the head of the UK Royalty, but it's not illegal, according mbk's logic.

 

[motorbiking]

it is clearly stated in UNCLOS 19 British vessels have no right to drop migrants back in France

UNCLOS A19 g

"the unloading of any person contrary to the customs, immigration and regulations of the coastal state"

So there was no point in writing article 98 then or separately agreeing SOLAS?
No coastal state has a duty to assist and everyone can be told to Foxtrot Oscar. After all it cost money to help people who need hospital care due to accidents at sea.

Or perhaps you are wrong? oh wait.. you are.

A vessel which is compelled to assist seafarers in distress is not engaging in passage that is not innocent.

gps has an accuracy of 10 to 25 metres plus or minus

so there is no way to determine if a boat is in French or British waters with


your latest dumb argument that a British boat can stay EXACTLY on the border of English water whilst pushing back a boat to stop it leaving French water

Seems to provide more flexibility to push back. You've got to think these arguments through Notchy Lad.

they can claim asylum withins 5 seconds of being in ear shot of an English person

your argument is nonsense you are claiming they can be prosecuted for 5 seconds tops

If they are in French waters when they claim Asylum, they need to tell the French Authorities. An "English person" has no obligation to grant asylum. If they claim asylum while being rescued in French waters and handed to the French, there is no obligation for the master of the ship to do anything. Unless you are suggesting that France is a danger to their life.

you have been repeatedly saying English vessels can go into French water and pick up a small boat in distress

and you have been repeatedly saying an English vessel can push back a small boat that is in or tries to enter British waters.

this is correct.

- Vessel in distress in French waters - SOLAS applies
- Vessel not in distress attempting to enter UK waters UNCLOS applies.

see how easy it is

 

[denso13]

Doesn't seem good does it, paying traffickers to cross the channel, then lying to rescuers that they are in distress, It all seems pretty much a premeditated crime to begin with rather than a genuine plea for help.

We should be stopping the boats at source then this argument wouldn't even arise.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Nonsense - they have assisted on many occasions. What is correct, is that the small boats typically refuse assistance while in French waters, because they know they will be taken back.

They have that right because you can't interfere with the passage of innocent boats.
It's extremely risky to start interfering with small boats overloaded with passengers.

They are compelled to assist and coordinate the rescue, but they have no power to direct them. what is it you don't understand?

You've already quoted it. Do you not read your own presentations?

Article 18, 24 and 98, UNCLOS plus SOLAS reg 33. says they must accept them.

Within the 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, the state has general jurisdiction on other grounds (including the right to direct vessels how to assist or not to assist), but this jurisdiction does not extend to ships in passage assisting other vessels (UNCLOS Articles 17-18).

Do you just ignore the bits you don't like?

 

[MNW67]

why is Reform finding it necessary to exit the ECHR, if pushbacks are legal?

Two different issues.

 

[Highway Man]

We should be stopping the boats at source then this argument wouldn't even arise.

Yes but how? Offshore processing centers wouldn't work in my opinion. I would say it is more a fault of our government offering these people incentives to come here in the first place that is making it such an attractive proposition.

 

[Highway Man]

And get the boat impounded, and you arrested.
Well Done!

Don't talk wet