• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

International News Immigration

Carpy said:
Just so I'm clear, what is your point? That because it's on the African continent it doesn't matter?
Click to expand...
He always has to make a point ,I think most normal people are terrified whats coming ,how many young girls get rapped in our country every week, 1,000 illegals a day last week and he makes light of it ,its not europe ? I bet he won't be going there on his holidays
 
Still nice to see Spain react in the correct way to such issues.............................a lot of them have now "voluntarily returned".

Can we deploy thse to the South Coast next?

1785524997697.webp
 
SteMerritt said:
Starmer and the Sheik sounds like a shitty BBC2 sitcom from the 90s.
Click to expand...

Are they a detective odd couple duo, Starmer is a by the book pen pusher keen to get promotion while Sheik is a former secret policeman from the made up country of Carbomya who gets results with the unorthodox method of torture, the comedy comes from the cultural misunderstandings? Actually I would watch that.
 
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this was set up and enabled by the USA and Israel to punish Spain for supporting Palestine and not helping with the Iran war.
 
Yesterday Reform UK announced 'Operation Fortress' - more like 'Operation Horse sh1t'!

This is right-wing populist clap-trap just like the Tories Rwanda plan which will take years to put in place, without getting anywhere, cost millions/billions of pounds of tax-payers money, and when the dust has settled the number of asylum seekers deported will be possible to count on one hand. Why do people fall for this crap?

Firstly, the French government has explicitly stated that returning migrants to French shores without authorization violates French sovereignty as well as international and maritime law. Forcibly landing uninvited migrants onto foreign soil requires the active cooperation of French or Belgian authorities; without it, the plan constitutes an illegal breach of international borders. Of course Reform UK and especially their support don't care about facts. But this will just ramp up years and years of legal challenges with escalating costs. Our international standing and relations with France and the EU (who France are a member of) will be damaged as well.

Then there's the Royal Navy - They will be reticent on getting involved in something that is against International law. Then Nuremburg Trials in 1945 showed that being 'Because I was told to it' is no defence. Unless of course Reform UK, have a plan to rewrite French, EU, International and Maritime law while they're at, which of course they won't).

Then there's the fact the British military all ready thinly spread. Royal Navy ships aren't just sat in harbour waiting for something to do. There are military operations involving Naval vessels going on around the world, as well as in the Channel where they are keeping an eye out for Russian submarines and incursions.

It's an ill-thought out plan, but of course Reform voters aren't interested in the plausibility of it because anyone who dares question their dear leader is just a traitor, woke and a 'lefty'.
 
French authorities in Paris have confirmed this morning that the mega-dinghy contained ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE people including 52 women and children. It capsized in the Channel.

The dinghy caught fire and many people suffered burns as the vessel was brought back to Boulogne in a joint French British rescue operation.

An Egyptian national has been arrrested.

 
boogaloo said:
Firstly, the French government has explicitly stated that returning migrants to French shores without authorization violates French sovereignty as well as international and maritime law. Forcibly landing uninvited migrants onto foreign soil requires the active cooperation of French or Belgian authorities; without it, the plan constitutes an illegal breach of international borders.
Click to expand...
I actually agree here. To sail into territorial waters of France would be a breach of Frances soverignty. And i would expect British ships to be fired upon. That to me leaves only two approaches if the approach to stop small boats entering the uk is theone we want to take. Tow them back out into international water or sink them in UK waters. Now im a libertarian people should be able to do silly and dangerous things if they want to. If you make it clear this is what will happen and people still choose to do it then much like smoking people should be allowed to do it and suffer the consequences. If knowing what will happen people still choose to take the risks then i feel that is their right their choice and i wouldnt worry too much about it.

Now to be absolutely clear we should have legal routes in those need to be set up with restrictions outside of the UK.

Note I am not saying no to refugees a legal route should exist. Just we need to defend our borders.
 
Last edited:
Matty Greens Left Boot said:
That said the first ru

I actually agree here. To sail into territorial waters of France would be a breach of Frances soverignty. And i would expect British ships to be fired upon. That to me leaves only two approaches. Tow them back out into international water or sink them in UK waters. Now im a libertarian people should be able to do silly and dangerous things if they want to. If you make it clear this is what will happen and people still choose to do it then much like smoking people should be allowed to do it and suffer the consequences. If knowing what will happen people still choose to take the risks then i feel that is their right their choice and i wouldnt worry too much about it.

Now to be absolutely clear we should have legal routes in those need to be set up with restrictions outside of the UK.

Note I am not saying no to refugees a legal route should exist. Just we need to defend our borders.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you want our coast guard/Navy to kill them?
 
Matty Greens Left Boot said:
That said the first ru

I actually agree here. To sail into territorial waters of France would be a breach of Frances soverignty. And i would expect British ships to be fired upon. That to me leaves only two approaches. Tow them back out into international water or sink them in UK waters. Now im a libertarian people should be able to do silly and dangerous things if they want to. If you make it clear this is what will happen and people still choose to do it then much like smoking people should be allowed to do it and suffer the consequences. If knowing what will happen people still choose to take the risks then i feel that is their right their choice and i wouldnt worry too much about it.

Now to be absolutely clear we should have legal routes in those need to be set up with restrictions outside of the UK.

Note I am not saying no to refugees a legal route should exist. Just we need to defend our borders.
Click to expand...
If you're a libertarian, surely you believe that people should be able to live where they want. Suggesting refugees be turned back or denied entry is surely against your so-called libertarian principles.
 
Village-Yellow said:
Just to be clear, you want our coast guard/Navy to kill them?
Click to expand...
If they have freely chosen to make that trip knowing the consequences then I dont have an issue with them recieving those consequences. The state doesn't need to ensure the survival of people doing stupid things. Like getting 150 people on a dinghy and trying to cross the channel when they have been told what will happen.

But no first option would be to deposit back into international waters.
 
Rescue them at sea, moral/humanitarian duty done.
Load them on a ferry and return to France.
"Sorry no paperwork.... your problem we are paying you to resolve"
No military issues..........
 
Boris said:
If you're a libertarian, surely you believe that people should be able to live where they want. Suggesting refugees be turned back or denied entry is surely against your so-called libertarian principles.
Click to expand...
I believe in respecting the laws of the land. And being liberal inside of that. Currently no large-scale party is suggesting open borders.
 
Matty Greens Left Boot said:
I believe in respecting the laws of the land. And being liberal inside of that. Currently no large-scale party is suggesting open borders.
Click to expand...
So if the laws are extremely illiberal you're happy to follow them because you're liberal. Have I got that right?
 
We have to disincentivise them to get on those boats as it is not sustainable to keep collecting them and taking them back to uk.
We know it’s not a safety issue that compels them to climb on board because they are in a safe country (France).
If we didn’t run the taxi service they wouldn’t get in the boat.
So no more drownings, and we can better legalise immigration.
Or is it ok to formalise this illegal process that is unfair on those who do it legally, and to the detriment of our country?
 
Last edited:
Boris said:
What taxi service is that?
Click to expand...
When they reach our waters they are transferred to a uk vessel and taken back to shore.
The shorthand for that is taxi service.
 
Last edited:
Boris said:
I thought the shorthand for that is fulfilling our legal obligations under international law (okay, maybe not shorthand)
Click to expand...
Yep, which is a shame. If there was no taxi, they wouldn’t get on those boats. No more drownings, no more exploitation.
Even so we should be looking to any which way to disincentivise the passengers, and disrupt the mini industry that sees them come over.
Unfortunately a lot of illegals are already here. We can’t accommodate them and it’s not right they are allowed the run of this country.
Stopping the boats, and removing the illegals won’t solve everything but will make a significant positive difference to this country.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom