Europe is about to scupper the old agreement whereby asylum seekers can be sent back to their first port of entry.

This of course could be disastrous for the UK. While it is likely to be supported by the eastern and southern European states (it is designed to protect them) and the poorer countries, I imagine the northern and some western states will be against it. Unfortunately the bigger states like Germany and France may also be in favour.

My guesses are:-

In favour - Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria & Greece.

Against - UK, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden.

No idea - Netherlands.

SOURCE

What option would we be left with , to deal with them if this happened ? Anything other than hang onto them?

Tighten up our asylum criteria, but we would still get landed with the housing and deportation costs for any applications we refused - on the other hand, if we refuse asylum, under the new rules they may be free to wander to another EU country and try their luck there so we could just shove them across the channel.

Minimal housing if we deported them efficiently? Or maybe just round them up like the French do every so often, and ship them back in bulk.That would be cost effective wouldnt it?

Can't read the source DD, need to subscribe I think.

This has probably been in the offing for ages. Why has France, or any other country for that matter, not sent back the thousands of migrants sitting in their country for the last couple of years, or even insist they apply for asylum there .It's all been on go slow and no action taken in such respects. There must be so many illegals, it would be virtually impossible to even guess which country they entered by .
The whole thing seems to be one huge disaster, and changing the rules to accommodate problems, surely means EU laws and rules can obviously be changed at any time. What a farce. Not much point in having fully binding EU rules really.

Yes sorry, bloomin' Financial Times which teases you.

Same article in the Guardian HERE[ which stresses that the UK is only voluntary in the Dublin agreement, but what worries me is that France may legitimately allow asylum seekers through to UK as they would be operating to different rules.

And the independent HERE

It takes quite a while to process asylum seekers, the first problem is confirming that they are from the country they say they are as there are blanket rules by country or origin.

Yes, and it's almost foreseeable how the 'sharing 'will go !

Germany; Syrians,
France; Syrians,
UK; Algerians, Nigerians, Ethiopians,
Greece and Italy; Libyans, Afghans, and Iraqis.

Eastern EU countries, the residue of unskilled who cannot speak the national language or offer any contribution to society.

Hence, more money required from the EU countries into the big pot, to support them in those countries too.

Unfortunately, we already know the asylum seekers are wanting to 'choose' where the end up, so how is this idea going to work anyway ?

Maybe I've mis-understood something.

This is doing the rounds:




Our rulers - Mrs Merkel and M. Hollande - have demanded that all European countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) migrant hordes over-running Europe's apparently unguarded borders.

But how do you decide what a "fair share" is? Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe.

But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?

Here is how it works out.

Europe's most densely populated country is England.

England's population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2).

Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for them to reach the same population density as Europe's most densely populated country – England?

To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could take 67 million migrants, France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain and even larger 161 million.

And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million! That should please Socialist Sturgeon.

In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.

Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their "fair share" of the migrant swarm. So, using my calculations, there's no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any migrants at all and our friends in these other countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants.

That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and Hollande demand!

It is very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full for now.

As you say Granny, the way Germany calculates things we have to take loads, but the obvious fairer way we take the least.

Population density would need amending a bit to only include habitable land otherwise Norway would have 180 million people sleeping in hammocks on cliff faces.

Its all getting very blurry with asylum seekers, economic migrants, refugees and conscription dodgers.

Initially I was a definite brexit supporter, then I had a bit of uncertainty, however recently Germany are making things even clearer that we need to vote out otherwise they will take us over.

Everything is blur, DD. I keep hoping we will get more information coming through. No, not yet we keep waiting. How can many know until we have a much fuller picture. All our thoughts are based on the news coming out of Europe at the present time.
I'm still for the out camp, but who knows what will turn up. I also believe we won't get out, because if Brexit has the majority votes, the gangsters will return with another package to appease. That decision will not be for us ( well, I doubt it).

Certain interviewees from Denmark today, said they hoped we would vote for out to get some change for everyone.
We heard today such things as we will never have the Euro as our currency. How can anyone say that ? The scary thing is that leaders come and go, depending on who or even what takes their places we are walking into a most uncertain place for the future. Nothing stays the same for long.
So far as the chance that we will live in uncertain and difficult times for the next 7 to 10 years if Brexit wins, really doesn't carry any weight either. We have been living in such circumstances for the last 10 years at least. Another ten would be bearable if we get the right result. Unfortunately, none of these 'young' politicians will remember how we were before Uk joined the Common Market, and so they have nothing to compare with.

At least we don't risk getting that ignorant bully Trump as our leader.
"Re-build Hadrian's wall; the Scots will pay".

If we vote to leave, has the government got a backup plan.
I wonder if it has had talks with other EU members and other countries about what possible deals could be made about trade,security etc
Surely it's the government's duty to have looked at the best deals we can get around the world and in Europe for us if we leave.

We have loads of trade agreements that aren't part of being in the EU.

We are also members of the World Trade Organisation which arbitrates where trades are unfair.

Of course we really hacked off loads of countries when we joined the common market, like Argentina and New Zealand who we did substantial trade with beforehand. As it happened, I think the New Zealand trade was continued but we clearly put it at risk.

Even if we vote out, its going to take many years to leave. More than likely a number of other countries will do the same so potential trade agreements will be buzzing around like flies.

we can always all vote to stay in and leave are borders wide open. build more hospitals, schools, houses and jails. Then don't start to moan as are social services grind more quickly to a halt.

Well said, Jimbob.

Many of us may not have thought of it that way and we can guarantee that those who champion the NHS, for example, will have many a groan in such circumstances.

It makes you wonder if all the austerity measures aren't for the present, perhaps they are preparing for the future?

Whatever it is doing, the austerity measures aren't reducing our debts.

Must admit that the announcement of the referendum must have been made after carefully planning and costing,( if we should vote out), otherwise the option would never have arisen.

It was always stated that we could never leave the EU because it would cost us too much. Things have obviously changed somehow.

OT probably, but it just struck me, the words "Europe" and "Asylum" occurring in the same sentence, kind of says it, somehow..!! (Sorry mods!)