Forum Topic

Was French Patrol Boat To Blame For Migrant Deaths?

Taken from the Mail on Sunday:A FRENCH warship was escorting an overloaded small boat across the Channel to UK waters when it sank yesterday, killing at least six migrants, it was claimed last night.A second French vessel was believed to be close by at the time of the tragedy. One of the small boats capsized as it entered a busy shipping lane and almost 70 people were thrown into the water. Six died and two more are thought to be missing. The presence of the French vessels sparked a furious political row as Tory MPs accused the French authorities of encouraging desperate migrants to attempt the perilous crossing in bad weather.‘The boat was being escorted towards Britain by a French navy patrol vessel when it capsized,’ the source told The Mail on Sunday. ‘This is a French policy designed to ensure the migrants make it to British waters as safely and quickly as possible.’Furious MPs last night questioned why France was not doing more to tackle the crisis, given that the UK is giving the country almost £500 million to help stop the crossings.‘We should get that money back,’ one senior Tory MP said.Yesterday’s incident - the worst loss of life in the Channel since November 2021 when 27 migrants perished - was last night described as a ‘wake-up call’ for Labour and Left-wing lawyers blocking Government plans to solve the small-boats crisis.Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: ‘Surely we must do everything to deter them from making that decision and making that perilous crossing. It is a wake-up call for all those who speak only of rights, but seem incapable of balancing those rights against the terrible risks that people are undertaking as they pay their life savings to be shoved on to a boat that is unseaworthy, only to find that it all ends somewhere in the channel.’Tory MP Marco Longhi, a member of the Home Affairs Committee, added: ‘This terrible tragedy should be a wake-up call to Sir Keir Starmer, Labour and the whole of the Left, that this is what happens when they oppose the Government’s sensible measures to tackle the small-boats crisis.‘I hope to God that the Labour leader now sees this and changes his obstructionist approach as soon as possible. People’s lives depend on it.’After another day of tragedy in the Channel, the MoS can reveal:Vile traffickers were attempting to lure more migrants to undertake the perilous crossing just hours after the deaths.■ Despite the accident, over 500 migrants crossed the Channel yesterday, making it the fourth busiest day of 2023.■ At least four other boats were escorted into English waters by French warships in the hours after the tragedy, it is claimed.■ The small boats are more crowded than ever, according to a senior Border Force source.■ People smugglers are refusing to give life jackets to some migrants, despite charging up to £5,000 for a seat on one of the packed boats.Full report here:https://newspaper.mailplus.co.uk/data/2921/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/2921/pub/10064/page/1/content/530536

Sue Hammond ● 905d33 Comments

Mr Hawkes,"According to the BBC news 'As at 14 August, 16,790 peopled had crossed in 2023.'Perhaps the following article, dated 16 March 2016, will give some sort of perspective towards the migration situation in Europe as a whole.https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/more-one-million-refugees-travel-greece-2015#:~:text=UNHCR%20says%20latest%20milestone%20an,coordinated%20approach%20to%20manage%20influx.

Ivonne Holliday ● 898d

Perhaps if the home office speeded up it's processing of asylum seekers then any not eligible could be returned home so there'd be fewer to accommodate and support? Of course, if they're genuine asylum seekers we shouldn't have an issue with that, should we? 

Michael Ixer ● 898d

OK. I give up.

David Ainsworth ● 898d

Mr AinsworthNo I am not.According to BBC news 'As at 14 August, 16,790 people had crossed in 2023. That figure includes 3,824 in June, the highest number for any June on record'.Still a large number to be housed, educated and provided with some form of income support.

John Hawkes ● 898d

Mr Ainsworth'I'd assume that at least the newly-born babies would have their accommodation already organised'.With whom ?Surely the parents are on the boat with them !

John Hawkes ● 898d

"The French police this year have stopped fewer boat than last year." "as of 15/08/2023, there have been 17% fewer crossings in 2023 than by the same point in 2022." (Migration Watch UK)Fewer boats to stop?"This contrasts with Belgium whose police have largely eradicated the problem of migrants leaving their shores."I wonder to where they have been displaced?

David Ainsworth ● 898d

From last year - widely reported nationally and internationally. Will the 2023 figures change? We have to wait and see."Four of UK’s top countries for nurse recruitment on WHO ‘red list’"https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/global-nursing/four-of-uks-top-countries-for-nurse-recruitment-on-who-red-list-04-10-2022/#:~:text=As%20previously%20highlighted%20by%20the,13%25%20of%20last%20year's%20total.

Ed Robinson ● 898d

Where is the evidence that Britain 'flouts' the WHO's red list rules? The Department of Health guidelines forbid NHS employers from actively recruiting in red list countries unless there is a bilateral agreement between Britain and the country concerned. This code does not prevent individual doctors and nurses from these countries applying of their own volition to work in the NHS. A refusal to accept any and all such applications would rightly be regarded as xenophobic. The UK already has a 'good agreement' with France to stop people crossing the Channel in small boats. Unfortunately France, which will receive £480 million from the UK over the next three years, is not fulfilling its part of the bargain. The French police this year  have stopped fewer boat than last year. This contrasts with Belgium whose police have largely eradicated the problem of migrants leaving their shores.

Steven Rose ● 898d

Yes but unless retention of staff is sorted those nurses will also leave when they become settled.Retention of staff is also very cost effective. Unfortunately nurses are not valued in the UK as the wages show.The main UK parties both promote low pay. People are shocked now when they compare UK wages with the poorest US states. Decades of low wage growth with the minimum wage now the normal wages for a lot of jobs.

Ed Robinson ● 898d

The UK flouts the UN Red List by recruiting trained  medical staff from countries with their own increasing health needs.  We should be training more of our own medical staff here and making sure that we retain them instead of making their  conditions of work and pay so difficult and unsatisfactory for them.https://mg.co.za/africa/2023-08-16-emigration-of-african-nurses-strains-overburdened-healthcare-systems/

Philippa Bond ● 898d

Mr Hawkes, I believe you've just proved that throwing in a statistic like 606,000 isn't very meaningful. Data is very valuable and useful: the new gold, oil or - the one I like - soil; but one needs to grow your data into information by analysing it, join it with other information to gain knowledge, then combine it with experience to obtain wisdom. 

Michael Ixer ● 899d

Funny you should say that - they are far far bigger than the UK!  Yes. we should be processing migrants here and making better arrangements with our nearest neighbours to stop the people smugglers and agree quotas and return people if necessary.  France isn't our only neighbour.The obsession with 'young single men' is daft as it is completely logical for families to send for their young fit and able men to make the difficult and dangerous journey to start a new life - or or for them to do so of their own volition.Services here are only strained through pure political ideology and an aging  population with no arramged and financed old age care not through overpopulation.

Philippa Bond ● 899d

"Any suggestions as to how the extra facilities be funded ?""Britain's military operations since the end of the cold war have cost £34.7bn and a further £30bn may have to be spent on long-term veteran care, according to an authoritative study.The bulk of the money has been spent on interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan judged to have been "strategic failures", says the study, Wars in Peace, published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)." (Guardian 24th April 2014)

David Ainsworth ● 899d

"Net population increase of 606,000 anything to do with this perhaps ?!"I'd assume that at least the newly-born babies would have their accommodation already organised.

David Ainsworth ● 899d

"In 2022 our net population increase was 606,000."Are you suggesting that illegal migration caused this?

David Ainsworth ● 899d

"...out to American companies"Is there no end to people evading the UK's responsibility?Put our own house in order then we can point the finger at the US. Do not use the US as an excuse for UK's foreign policy.

Ed Robinson ● 899d

This was controversial and not a popular policy and it was considered to be taking unfair advantage of much smaller and poorer places.  I understand much if not all running of it was contracted out to American companies.  https://www.erc.org.au/offshore_processing#:~:text=Offshore%20processing%20or%20detention%20is,for%20by%20the%20Australian%20Government.

Philippa Bond ● 899d

Although some coming have to pay an NHS surcharge...https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application

Michael Ixer ● 899d

Mr IxerAren't people saying the NHS is already under stress ?Why add to it.

John Hawkes ● 899d

If the UK's population is approximately 6.8×10⁷ and the net increase in population is, as you say, roughly 6×10⁵ then should an increase of just under one percent cause a significant stress on the heath services of a country with one of the world's leading economies? https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

Michael Ixer ● 899d

Oh I forgot.Rented accommodation in very short supply especially in London and other big cities with rents rocketing and unaffordable for many young workers.Good business (see Mail online )for -  'Greedy property dealer Jaydipkumar Valand, 48, one of four landlords found guilty of raking in £360,000 by packing 45 migrants and other vulnerable people into the semi-detached home in Wembley in 2018.The 1920s property rented for £6,000 a month was divided into seven bedrooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor'. Net population increase of 606,000 anything to do with this perhaps ?!

John Hawkes ● 899d

Mr AinsworthYou are obviously very sympathetic to those illegal channel crossing immigrants - mainly fit young men looking for work.Do you believe in a completely free open door immigration policy ?In 2022 our net population increase was 606,000.This must have put pressure on our health, education and other social services.Any suggestions as to how the extra facilities be funded ?

John Hawkes ● 899d

An interesting article Katrina.However in the case of Poland it neglects to say that it has more around 1m Ukrainian refugees since the war.My understanding is that the Dublin agreement relies on returned refugees being processed and then distributed throughout the EU, but as mentioned countries seem unwilling especially in an economic downturn and possibly even more refugees from UKraine.Labour have publish their 5 point plan. Looking at the main two:"National Crime Agency tasked with cracking down on smuggling gangs upstream"Not sure how that will be much help with "International" gangs being "overseas". "and tackle humanitarian crises at source by helping refugees in their region"Says Yvette Cooper, Labour Shadow home secretary who consistently voted for the Iraq war and voted against an inquiry 14 times. according to theyworkforyou website.I can't see Western governments who are withholding Afghan, Iran & Syria assets changing policy under Labour. So I assume that is just waffle.https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10131/yvette_cooper/normanton%2C_pontefract_and_castleford/divisions?policy=1049https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312584/ukrainian-refugees-by-country/

Ed Robinson ● 902d

This might interest some involved in the ongoing argument.https://www.dw.com/en/how-eu-states-try-to-curtail-migration/a-66543041

Katrina Black ● 902d

"The aim surely is to stem the flow of crossings in small boats. What is the relevance of the number of refugees taken in by other countries?"You wrote:-"The policy of removing migrants who make the crossing to a third country has the merit of being a rational attempt to break the people smugglers' business model. It worked in the case of the Vietnamese boat people who attempted to sail to Australia. The third country proposed by the government is Rwanda. The Appeal Court ruled that Rwanda is a safe country but decided on a 2 to ! majority, with the Lord Chief Justice dissenting, that there was a possibility that Rwanda might in the future send these migrants back to their home countries. This issue could easily be resolved by a declaration from the Rwandan government. In these circumstances it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn the Appeal Court's ban. There may also  be other countries willing to take the migrants."In reply I wrote:-"May be so. There are many countries which take more migrants per head of population than we do. Have any come forward?"If you want a third country to which you can remove the small boat arriving migrants to break the smugglers' business model, then surely the most likely useful country for that purpose would be one of the aforementioned countries which have been more acceptant of migrants than we have.

David Ainsworth ● 903d

There is absolutely no relevance.

Sue Hammond ● 903d

The aim surely is to stem the flow of crossings in small boats. What is the relevance of the number of refugees taken in by other countries?

Steven Rose ● 903d

"There may also be other countries willing to take the migrants."May be so. There are many countries which take more migrants per head of population than we do. Have any come forward?

David Ainsworth ● 903d

@Steven Rose 08.34France has never cooperated (with us) in trying to stop these crossings despite the £100+millions that we have paid them to do so.  Macron's government has never honoured this agreement and never will especially because it has the EU's endorsement not to:The EU blocks deal allowing Channel migrants to be sent back to Francehttps://mol.im/a/12406567This mass migration is largely the result of Schengen which the U.K. was never part of so in theory most migrants have no legal right to come here anyway. There are currently 27 countries in Schengen and as far as I am aware they are all perfectly safe havens for migrants to go to and they would have a legal right to stay there.

Sue Hammond ● 903d

No doubt all political parties would like to see France take back the migrants who attempt to cross the Channel, but this is highly unlikely. The point is that this is the only solution Labour has come up with, apart from targetting the criminal gangs, which is more easily said than done. The policy of removing migrants who make the crossing to a third country has the merit of being a rational attempt to break the people smugglers' business model. It worked in the case of the Vietnamese boat people who attempted to sail to Australia. The third country proposed by the government is Rwanda. The Appeal Court ruled that Rwanda is a safe country but decided on a 2 to ! majority, with the Lord Chief Justice dissenting, that there was a possibility that Rwanda might in the future send these migrants back to their home countries. This issue could easily be resolved by a declaration from the Rwandan government. In these circumstances it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn the Appeal Court's ban. There may also  be other countries willing to take the migrants. What other solution is there?

Steven Rose ● 903d

"Labour's stated policy of obtaining an agreement with France to take the migrants back is simply pie in the sky."That is also a Tory policy, is it not? And of course 30p Lee  has told the refugees to f*** off back to France, and been backed by many Tories, so it can't be just hung around Labour's neck."making it clear that asylum applications from those who enter the country illegally will automatically be rejected and the individuals themselves  will be sent to a third country."Which third country/countries do you suggest?

David Ainsworth ● 903d

How big is Great Britain compared to other countries, why do they all want to come here. Free food, roof over their heads, anything they want.  Some of our people live in dreadful flats leaking ceilings, full of damp. Yet the Council make them put up with it for years and still take their rent. Perhaps if they buy some dingy's and pretend their illegal, they will have Doctors, roof over their heads and food. All for nothing.

Barbara Stevens ● 903d

The evidence seems to suggest that the French police are not too bothered if migrants leave French shores in the direction of Britain. Sometimes the migrants set off in full view of hundreds of holidaymakers. Labour's stated policy of obtaining an agreement with France to take the migrants back is simply pie in the sky. Once the migrants have left French territorial waters, they are no longer France's problem. Why would France agree to take them back? The only realistic solution is to deter the crossings in the first place by making it clear that asylum applications from those who enter the country illegally will automatically be rejected and the individuals themselves  will be sent to a third country. Those who criticise this policy as inhumane need to say how they would tackle the problem. Just rep[eating that we should Target the criminal gangs who facilitate the crossings is not an answer. These gangs mainly operate in France and Belgium where the British police have no jurisdiction.

Steven Rose ● 903d