Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[pete01]

The "don't come here, it isn't allowed" solution.

It isn't allowed though is it?

My solution was in post #381.

 

[denso13]

My solution was in post #381.

Not allowed either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[pete01]

Not allowed either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No but if you're willing to let one wrong slide it might aswell be the one that helps the country out? No?

 

[denso13]

No but if you're willing to let one wrong slide it might aswell be the one that helps the country out? No?

I'd rather stop the boats in the first place than wait until they are the middle of the channel.

 

[pete01]

I'd rather stop the boats in the first place than wait until they are the middle of the channel.

I take it that's hard as I assume we have no rights doing that in France?

 

[denso13]

I take it that's hard as I assume we have no rights doing that in France?

France suggested that we have a processing centre there some years ago. We turned them down.

 

[pete01]

France suggested that we have a processing centre there some years ago. We turned them down.

Oh ok

 

[motorbiking]

that is wrong, they can not do that

weve been through this numerous times, you seem to think if you post this lie often enough you will get away with it. You wont.

border force cant just enter French territorial waters without consent, so they cant pick up migrants from small boats in French water

and as youve already admitted, they cant pick them up in British water and return them to France





that is wrong, that is a push back

the boats are small inflatables not suitable for channel crossings and they are overloaded, ergo they are in distress

you can not push back a boat in distress

The problem is Notch, you seem to have zero knowledge on the subject.

The definition of a vessel in distress is not as you think. Lets see if we can bring you up to speed.

Have a look at the chart. https://maps.garmin.com/en-GB/marine?maps=another-brand&overlay=false&key=u114xhpn8h8h

French and UK waters are marked clearly.

There are two international agreements that are relevant and a clarification amendment to both:
1) https://assets.publishing.service.g...4e33f3c6e/solas_v_on_safety_of_navigation.pdf
2) https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
3) https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Facilitation/Documents/MSC.167 (78).pdf
Lets call these (1) SOLAS, (2) UNCLOS and (3) RESCUE

Vessel in distress.
SOLAS ch 5, Reg 33 and UNCLOS Article 98 describes the obligation on ALL ships, whether commercial or leisure. They must rescue them unless there is good reason not to. Remember SOLAS applies to vessels in international waters as well as territorial waters. There is no obligation on the Master charged with rescue to do anything other than rescue those in distress. He is not obliged to tow them or take them to his home port etc. He may rescue them and take them wherever he deems appropriate based on the situation. RESCUE further states that he can do this with minimal interruption to his intended voyage. A port is not required to grant permission and has no power to refuse disembarked people irrelevant of their immigration status. Given anyone who has been in choppy sea water for a period of time is likely to have inhaled sea water, they will ALL need urgent medical attention to prevent secondary drowning. If I rescue in French waters, France must take them, if I rescue in UK waters, UK must take them. this is defined in RESCUE

So with the above in place. ANY ship can and must pick up drowning sea farers and take them to the nearest port for urgent medical care and minimum disruption to its passage. Therefore, Illegal migrants in distress rescued in French waters will typically be taken to France and in UK, UK. The coordinating coast guards have a role to coordinate in their respective territories (as required in UNCLOS Article 98).

Then we have the rights of the coastal state to "police" its territorial waters. UNCLOS article 25 (1) Says the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (2) (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

This gives the power to prevent ANY vessel entering its waters if their passage is not innocent. Remember at this point in time the illegal migrants have not claimed asylum.

So the coastal state has the right to prevent entry to its waters and the any ship has the right to take rescued people to the nearest port. A vessel is either in distress or on passage, it cannot be both. If its on passage it can be repelled, if its in distress it can be taken back. So long as pushback occurs before the vessel is in UK waters, then it can be legal.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

So with the above in place. ANY ship can and must pick up Drowning sea farers and take them to the nearest port for urgent medical care and minimum disruption to its passage.

This is dependent on several factors: the condition of those rescued, the rescue boat on-board medical care facilities, the time/distance to the nearest port, and to other adequate ports, the need for the rescue boat to remain on station for further rescues, etc.
It is not a simple: you must follow all these guidelines.
I am confident that the RNLI are more familiar with the regulations than you.

Therefore, Illegal migrants in distress rescued in French waters will typically be taken to France and in UK, UK. The coordinating coast guards have a role to coordinate in their respective territories (as required in UNCLOS Article 98).

Precisely. "will typically", "coordinating coast guards" etc are all relevant phrases.

UNCLOS article 25 (1) Says the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

A boat full of unarmed refugees can not reasonably be described as "not innocent".

Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (2) (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

Claiming asylum is considered as an innocent activity, and is covered by other international rules.

This gives the power to prevent ANY vessel entering its waters if their passage is not innocent. Remember at this point in time the illegal migrants have not claimed asylum.

They intend to, when rescued.

However, states have clear obligations towards refugees and migrants before they cross the border, including assistance at sea. Even if assistance at sea may function as a “pull factor” and encourage refugees and migrants to attempt to cross the Mediterranean, there is no legal avenue for states to avoid such assistance.

The duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

So the coastal state has the right to prevent entry to its waters

No it does not, in respect to asylum seekers. That right only applies to "not innocent" boats.

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.

The duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

and the any ship has the right to take rescued people to the nearest port.

It may have the right, but it is not obligated to use that right.

It is sometimes suggested that migrant vessels heading from Africa to Europe are so unseaworthy, overloaded and in such bad shape, that they are unlikely to make it to the destination. It is thus suggested that the rules of maritime rescue do not apply. I can see no legal basis for this argument. Most likely, the majority of ships in the need of a rescue have ended up in this situation because they are unseaworthy, and it would be quite harsh that passengers should pay with their lives for not having ensured the seaworthiness of the vessel. On land, persons in danger are assisted if they have driven too fast, been the passenger of a car driven by a drunk driver, had thoughts of suicide, or caused themselves illness through bad lifestyle choices.

In sum, there is a duty and a right to render assistance to persons in danger at sea. This duty applies regardless of whether the rescue operations are believed to have an undesired pull effect, motivating refugees and migrants to travel.

The duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

 

[motorbiking]

This is dependent on several factors: the condition of those rescued, the rescue boat on-board medical care facilities, the time/distance to the nearest port, and to other adequate ports, the need for the rescue boat to remain on station for further rescues, etc.

No

It is not a simple: you must follow all these guidelines.
I am confident that the RNLI are more familiar with the regulations than you.

They operate voluntary SARs services. Their status is no different to any other vessel. They are usually tasked when operating in UK coastal waters, but increasingly its independent life boats due to the politics

Precisely. "will typically", "coordinating coast guards" etc are all relevant phrases.


A boat full of unarmed refugees can not reasonably be described as "not innocent".

incorrect - Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (2) (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

until they claim asylum they are criminals attempting an illegal passage, in an illegal boat, operated by an illegal trafficker. If they are rescued in French waters and claim asylum, then great.

Claiming asylum is considered as an innocent activity, and is covered by other international rules.


They intend to, when rescued.

great - in French waters, back to France then, could have saved themselves getting wet.

The duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

No it does not, in respect to asylum seekers. That right only applies to "not innocent" boats.

they are not asylum seekers until they claim asylum.

It may have the right, but it is not obligated to use that right.

We are discussing the legal possibilities of Push back - its legal, the state may not want to do it due to bad press or they may wish to do it covertly - like Greece.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

No

yes.

...

incorrect - Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (2) (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

We have already and very recently discussed this. it refers to people trafficking, not asylum seekers.

until they claim asylum they are criminals attempting an illegal passage, in an illegal boat, operated by an illegal trafficker. If they are rescued in French waters and claim asylum, then great.

Until they claim asylum they are refugees, possibly in distress at sea, and the rules of rescue make no mention of the status of those in distress at sea. In fact, it categorically states that the status of those in distress has no relevance to the obligation to rescue.
So your reference to their status is nonsense.

great - in French waters, back to France then, could have saved themselves getting wet.

They have a choice of where they choose to claim asylum. Another issue that has been discussed endlessly.
Why do you keep making the same old incorrect excuses for your warped ideology?

they are not asylum seekers until they claim asylum.

They're status is irrelevant, As you consider yourself an expert on SOLAS, etc, you must be aware of this.

We are discussing the legal possibilities of Push back - its legal, the state may not want to do it due to bad press or they may wish to do it covertly - like Greece.

More nonsensical repetition of previous flawed arguments.

International human rights law protects the right to seek asylum and the right to life. Pushbacks can violate these rights if they endanger the lives of the individuals being turned back or impede their ability to seek asylum.

 

[motorbiking]

yes.

Given they cross dover to calais, and I am proposing they are not permitted to enter UK waters under UNCLOS article 25, the closest port is France.

We have already and very recently discussed this. it refers to people trafficking, not asylum seekers.

once they claim asylum.

Until they claim asylum they are refugees, possibly in distress at sea, and the rules of rescue make no mention of the status of those in distress at sea. In fact, it categorically states that the status of those in distress has no relevance to the obligation to rescue.
So your reference to their status is nonsense.

No they are criminals. Claiming asylum gives them a limited get out of jail card.
If you do not believe they have committed a crime, please provide evidence that:
- they have filed the necessary immigration papers.
- their vessel is compliant with the necessary commercial safety rules
- their skipper is appropriately insured, qualified and endorsed.

They have a choice of where they choose to claim asylum. Another issue that has been discussed endlessly.
Why do you keep making the same old incorrect excuses for your warped ideology?

They do - If they make it to the UK they can claim asylum.

They're status is irrelevant, As you consider yourself an expert on SOLAS, etc, you must be aware of this.

SOLAS is clear - a vessel in distress in French waters can be taken to France without any permission needed.

More nonsensical repetition of previous flawed arguments.

So it's important to prevent them passing in to UK waters without further risk. Plenty of ways to do this.

 

[Notch7]

.

 

[Notch7]

SOLAS is clear - a vessel in distress in French waters can be taken to France without any permission needed

WRONG

border force dont have permission to be in French territorial water, so it wont be near a vessel in distress in French water

 

[Notch7]

Vessel in distress.
SOLAS ch 5, Reg 33 and UNCLOS Article 98 describes the obligation on ALL ships, whether commercial or leisure. They must rescue them unless there is good reason not to. Remember SOLAS applies to vessels in international waters as well as territorial waters. There is no obligation on the Master charged with rescue to do anything other than rescue those in distress. He is not obliged to tow them or take them to his home port etc. He may rescue them and take them wherever he deems appropriate based on the situation. RESCUE further states that he can do this with minimal interruption to his intended voyage. A port is not required to grant permission and has no power to refuse disembarked people irrelevant of their immigration status. Given anyone who has been in choppy sea water for a period of time is likely to have inhaled sea water, they will ALL need urgent medical attention to prevent secondary drowning. If I rescue in French waters, France must take them, if I rescue in UK waters, UK must take them. this is defined in RESCUE

So with the above in place. ANY ship can and must pick up drowning sea farers and take them to the nearest port for urgent medical care and minimum disruption to its passage. Therefore, Illegal migrants in distress rescued in French waters will typically be taken to France and in UK, UK. The coordinating coast guards have a role to coordinate in their respective territories (as required in UNCLOS Article 98).

Then we have the rights of the coastal state to "police" its territorial waters. UNCLOS article 25 (1) Says the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. Article 19 defines passage that is not innocent specifically (2) (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

This gives the power to prevent ANY vessel entering its waters if their passage is not innocent. Remember at this point in time the illegal migrants have not claimed asylum.

So the coastal state has the right to prevent entry to its waters and the any ship has the right to take rescued people to the nearest port. A vessel is either in distress or on passage, it cannot be both. If its on passage it can be repelled, if its in distress it can be taken back. So long as pushback occurs before the vessel is in UK waters, then it can be legal.

you have not provided the actual verbatim quote from the rules

please provide the actual quote, not your "interpretation"