I don’t quite understand the lawyer’s surprise: isn’t this, in essence, the same as the EU’s deal with Turkey? Turkey is paid a handsome sum of money to hold refugees back and allow the EU to sidestep any obligations. The UK is paid a sum of money by Denmark so that Denmark can shift its obligations onto the UK (or at least shunt people out of the country towards whom it does not believe it has any obligation). It is all quite cynical but to come over all shocked as if these kinds of practices are entirely new is not credible.
I guess that what is new and maybe surprising is that one North West European country (or rich country) pays another for taking its refugees. Or a small country handing down its refugees to a big one. (They are in the same spot of the food chain, or otherwise the food chain is, you would expect, the other way round).
Interesting would be the price: is a Danish refugee redirected to the UK more expensive than a EU refugee from the Middle East redirected to Turkey?
Matt B
2 years ago
Perhaps the reason the UK is accepting them is because it is without question the right and only honourable thing to do in this instance, both recognising their service and preventing their near certain deaths at home, so shame on the Danes.
Agreed. I’m generally not a fan of the way the asylum laws are constantly abused, you just have to look at the boat loads of people “fleeing” France crossing the channel for that, and the too many economic migrants are somehow classed as refugees, but to me this is a different scenario. These people are genuinely in danger because they assisted western nations, therefore I think it’s wrong for those same western nations to turn their backs on them. I don’t believe we have a duty to house every Afghan refugee, but we do the ones that worked for us
R S Foster
2 years ago
…these folk are in an entirely different category to the chancers and potential terrorists making their way across the channel…we know they are on our side and share our values because they worked alongside us in uniform and at risk. Personally, I’d readily take anyone who has served alongside HMAF, as interpreters or in the Afghan Army…and then recruit them into our own Army and Security Services to help us take the battle to our enemies overseas…and hunt down our enemies at home…
Frederick B
2 years ago
Just as well we are short of immigrants in Britain.
I don’t quite understand the lawyer’s surprise: isn’t this, in essence, the same as the EU’s deal with Turkey? Turkey is paid a handsome sum of money to hold refugees back and allow the EU to sidestep any obligations. The UK is paid a sum of money by Denmark so that Denmark can shift its obligations onto the UK (or at least shunt people out of the country towards whom it does not believe it has any obligation). It is all quite cynical but to come over all shocked as if these kinds of practices are entirely new is not credible.
I guess that what is new and maybe surprising is that one North West European country (or rich country) pays another for taking its refugees. Or a small country handing down its refugees to a big one. (They are in the same spot of the food chain, or otherwise the food chain is, you would expect, the other way round).
Interesting would be the price: is a Danish refugee redirected to the UK more expensive than a EU refugee from the Middle East redirected to Turkey?
Perhaps the reason the UK is accepting them is because it is without question the right and only honourable thing to do in this instance, both recognising their service and preventing their near certain deaths at home, so shame on the Danes.
Agreed. I’m generally not a fan of the way the asylum laws are constantly abused, you just have to look at the boat loads of people “fleeing” France crossing the channel for that, and the too many economic migrants are somehow classed as refugees, but to me this is a different scenario. These people are genuinely in danger because they assisted western nations, therefore I think it’s wrong for those same western nations to turn their backs on them. I don’t believe we have a duty to house every Afghan refugee, but we do the ones that worked for us
…these folk are in an entirely different category to the chancers and potential terrorists making their way across the channel…we know they are on our side and share our values because they worked alongside us in uniform and at risk. Personally, I’d readily take anyone who has served alongside HMAF, as interpreters or in the Afghan Army…and then recruit them into our own Army and Security Services to help us take the battle to our enemies overseas…and hunt down our enemies at home…
Just as well we are short of immigrants in Britain.
The smartest people in Europe, it would seem.