V.No confirmation was received from his home, but, according to the Times, the British Home Secretary Prithi Patel He went to the EU to campaign for support in the fight against smugglers and illegal crossing of the English Channel. Rome and Brussels are in the project, which is said to be in Berlin, where, due to government handover, it is not yet clear who to meet. He is also said to be considering convening a special summit of G7 interior ministers, at first glance it is unclear how Japan, the US or Canada could help the English channel. The Times reports that an Interior Ministry employee described the minister as a “headless chicken” on the way to “anyone who wants to talk to him on the plane.”
Patel’s restlessness following a French call from the European Council of Interior Ministers on the matter. Meanwhile, Paris agreed to the talks, but not on the basis of British proposals. These include the use of surveillance equipment such as joint patrols and drones on the Channel Beach and – which has angered Paris the most – negotiating a resettlement agreement for immigrants.
While it is not clear exactly what Patel wants to achieve on the continent, new plans to reduce dangerous canal crossings are airing almost daily in London. This reflects the growing impatience with the government. According to a poll, only seven per cent of people in the UK are happy with their policy on the issue. Patel’s personal reputation has plummeted. She recalls everywhere that border control was declared in favor of Brexit. But since leaving the EU in January, more than 25,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel – three times more than last year. According to Patel, “70 percent of economic immigrants are men.”
The Home Office has been exploring an “Australian” solution for months, namely transferring (often failed) asylum practices to another country. But so far the government has not been able to come up with a plan. This also applies to Patel’s announcement that expatriate boats would be “safely and legally” diverted and pushed back into French waters. The “pushback” initiative failed to achieve the intended preventive effect because in practice it turned out to be very dangerous and in violation of international law. Moreover, human rights organizations are being prosecuted and threatened.
In addition, a bill has been in parliament since July, the “Nationality and Boundaries Bill”, which, according to the government, has three goals. On the one hand, it is about “making the (refuge) system more just and effective and supporting those in need of genuine asylum.” (As of September, Great Britain had approved 13,210 asylum seekers.) The third goal is to “deport those who have no right to be here.”
The criminalization of migration through “illegal means” is particularly controversial. This means that immigrants coming across the canal do not have full rights to the practice of asylum. Despite the passage of parliamentary sanctions, the issue of deportation of rejected asylum seekers is still unresolved. It has been steadily declining for many years, from more than 10,663 in 2010 to 1149 in the previous recorded year. The trend was finally publicly slandered in November, after an asylum seeker who was rejected seven years ago was bombed in Liverpool.
An amendment to the “Human Rights Act” amended by the European Convention on Human Rights to British law aims to rectify the situation. Justice Minister Dominic Robb on Tuesday attributed the 8th section of the conference to the “lion’s share” in legal challenges to deportation orders below, which guarantee the right to family life. Rob announced that this article, which had been so generously explained by the judges, would be shortened. However, Great Britain has no plans to withdraw from the conference.
“Friend of animals everywhere. Web guru. Organizer. Food geek. Amateur tv fanatic. Coffee trailblazer. Alcohol junkie.”