Turning Back Boats

[Jeff Gaines]

Started a new thread as I couldn't find a suitable place in the original.
There's an article in the Mail by the ex-minister for foreign affairs of
Australia:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9979369/

He says:
"What the British Government needs to make clear is that its laws are
being broken, and that the problem originates in France. Under
international law, there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe country
such as France to seek asylum in another country."

I'm not sure that accords with what has been said in here.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0n2r4bu...@news.individual.net>, at 08:37:25 on Sat,
11 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>
>Started a new thread as I couldn't find a suitable place in the
>original. There's an article in the Mail by the ex-minister for foreign
>affairs of Australia:
>
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9979369/
>
>He says:
>"What the British Government needs to make clear is that its laws are
>being broken, and that the problem originates in France. Under
>international law, there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe
>country such as France to seek asylum in another country."
>
>I'm not sure that accords with what has been said in here.

I'd be happier with his advice if he acknowledged a the Channel isn't
international waters, and therefore the law will be different from off
the cost of Australia. For turning the boats back, anyway.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <5sQH2Owm...@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

Actually, most of the Channel IS international waters (the 12 nautical
miles - not the 200 mile economic zone). The only bit between England
and France that isn't is the 30 miles or so that stretches approximately
from Lydd to Deal, where there's no room for a gap - ie the shortest
route which most migrants will be taking.
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <fovw$iOEbH...@brattleho.plus.com>, at 10:28:36 on Sat, 11
Sep 2021, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:

And that's the stretch where the difficulty arises over "turning back"
the boats, because it's directly into French waters, not International
waters!!
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

On 11 Sep 2021 at 09:37:25 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> Started a new thread as I couldn't find a suitable place in the original.
> There's an article in the Mail by the ex-minister for foreign affairs of
> Australia:
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9979369/
>
> He says:
> "What the British Government needs to make clear is that its laws are
> being broken, and that the problem originates in France. Under
> international law, there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe country
> such as France to seek asylum in another country."

When you analyse "there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe country
such as France to seek asylum in another country" it doesn't actually mean
anything at all. There is no basis in international law for me having a cup of
tea; more relevantly, there is no basis for stopping me.

>
> I'm not sure that accords with what has been said in here.

I am not sure the opinions of a random, unemployed Australian politician add
much to the legal discussion.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq3ebn...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:22:47 on Sat, 11
Sep 2021, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

He's not random, having previously been the foreign minister who
presumably did their deal with Indonesia. Which is very different from
the Channel (even the bits which *are* international waters, because in
theory the turned-back boats could plausibly head for an alternative
destination in the region, and the only one which leaps out at me here
is Iceland, or maybe Morocco (from which migrants are fleeing rather
than looking to settle).

But when interviewed on R4 the other day (and this Daily Wail article
has all the hallmarks being merely an edited transcript) he cheerfully
admitted to 'not knowing much about the UK situation', which speaks for
itself. I think the R4 news editor should have spiked the item at that
point.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On 11 Sep 2021 08:37:25 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>Started a new thread as I couldn't find a suitable place in the original.
>There's an article in the Mail by the ex-minister for foreign affairs of
>Australia:
>
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9979369/
>
>He says:
>"What the British Government needs to make clear is that its laws are
>being broken, and that the problem originates in France. Under
>international law, there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe country
>such as France to seek asylum in another country."

Well, he's right, of course. If a Frenchman left France and tried to
claim asylum in the UK, he would very quickly be sent back. But the
point here is that the various international treaties recognise that
someone transiting through a country is not the same as coming from that
country. And this is one of the big differences between the UK, and
Australia, because most migrants arriving by sea in Australia have
travelled directly from their country of origin, while in the UK they
have transited through several countries before getting here. So we can
refuse to accept an asylum seeker and return them to their country of
origin, but we can't just dump them back on whatever country they may
have passed through en route to getting here.

After all, if we applied a rigid rule that all asylum seekers must
request asylum in the first country they enter after leaving their
country of origin, then most of the Afghan refugees escaping the Taliban
would now be stuck in Qatar, since that's typically where the military
transport planes are dropping them off before they then get a civilian
onwards flight.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

He did in the radio interview I linked to previously.

[gareth evans]

On 11/09/2021 11:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> I am not sure the opinions of a random, unemployed Australian politician add
> much to the legal discussion.
>

Laws change and develop in response to new situations

[The Todal]

On 11/09/2021 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Started a new thread as I couldn't find a suitable place in the
> original. There's an article in the Mail by the ex-minister for foreign
> affairs of Australia:
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9979369/
>
> He says:
> "What the British Government needs to make clear is that its laws are
> being broken, and that the problem originates in France. Under
> international law, there is no basis for migrants leaving a safe country
> such as France to seek asylum in another country."
>
> I'm not sure that accords with what has been said in here.
>

Probably the same man who was interviewed on LBC Radio recently,
peddling the same advice.

Australia is notorious for its inhumane and callous treatment of
refugees, for which it should hang its head in shame.

see
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/australias-offshore-asylum-centres-have-been-a-cruel-disaster-they-must-not-be-replicated-by-the-uk

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/16/australia-8-years-abusive-offshore-asylum-processing

“Australia’s abusive offshore processing policy has caused immeasurable
suffering for thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers,” said Sophie
McNeill, Australia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The cruelty of
these camps, in which seven people have committed suicide and children
have been terribly traumatized, should not be replicated elsewhere.”

Since July 19, 2013, the Australian government has forcibly transferred
more than 3,000 asylum seekers who sought to reach Australia by boat to
offshore processing camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Individuals and
families with children spent years living in substandard conditions in
these centers, where they suffered severe abuse, inhumane treatment, and
medical neglect.

Under international law, immigration detention should not be used as
punishment, but rather should be an exceptional measure of last resort
to carry out a legitimate aim. Adult migrants should be detained for the
shortest time necessary. Children should not be placed in immigration
detention.

Offshore processing not only inflicts human suffering, but is also costly.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 11/09/2021 in message <iq3u8l...@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:

>Australia is notorious for its inhumane and callous treatment of refugees,
>for which it should hang its head in shame.

Is there anything other than hard left wing narrative?

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

[Norman Wells]

On 11/09/2021 13:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

> After all, if we applied a rigid rule that all asylum seekers must
> request asylum in the first country they enter after leaving their
> country of origin, then most of the Afghan refugees escaping the Taliban
> would now be stuck in Qatar, since that's typically where the military
> transport planes are dropping them off before they then get a civilian
> onwards flight.

That would be no objection to what would be a very sensible rule. They
would be held in the transit area of the intermediate airport, which
does not count as entering the country itself.

[Norman Wells]

On 11/09/2021 16:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 11/09/2021 in message <iq3u8l...@mid.individual.net> The Todal
> wrote:
>
>> Australia is notorious for its inhumane and callous treatment of
>> refugees, for which it should hang its head in shame.
>
> Is there anything other than hard left wing narrative?

Not from the Guardian, and especially not from its 'Comment is Free'
section, about which all I can say is that it's worth what it costs.

[The Todal]

On 11/09/2021 16:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 11/09/2021 in message <iq3u8l...@mid.individual.net> The Todal
> wrote:
>
>> Australia is notorious for its inhumane and callous treatment of
>> refugees, for which it should hang its head in shame.
>
> Is there anything other than hard left wing narrative?
>

How are refugee rights anything to do with left wing or right wing? Is
there something you've found in Das Kapital arguing that a nation should
be generous to refugees??

[Norman Wells]

Call it wishy-washy, sentimental, bleeding-heart, tear-jerking,
emotionally blackmailing, right-on, typical Guardian liberalism instead
then.

[JNugent]

> then...

...coupled with a pinch of "electorate-building".

[Jeff Gaines]

The sources you quoted are hard left wing, it would be good to see a
balanced view. Suggestion on how refuge rights are dealt with differ
widely depending on political viewpoint.

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq3bsg...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:40:33 on Sat, 11
Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

He mentioned that the Australian scheme worked because the interception
*was* in international waters, and didn't address what would be
different in the channel, where the turning back (to French waters)
would be done in British waters.

The impression I have is that once the RIBs have crossed the median
line, all we can do is accept the boaters. ie that's the border, not the
beaches.
--
Roland Perry

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

>In message <iq3bsg...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:40:33 on Sat, 11
>Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>On 11/09/2021 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> I'd be happier with his advice if he acknowledged a the Channel
>>>isn't international waters, and therefore the law will be different
>>>from off the cost of Australia. For turning the boats back, anyway.
>>
>>He did in the radio interview I linked to previously.
>
>He mentioned that the Australian scheme worked because the interception
>*was* in international waters,

That seems counter-intuitive. One would not expect the Australian
authorities to have any jurisdiction over vessels in international
waters. So what is it that gives them this right to turn back boats that
enter them?

>and didn't address what would be different in the channel, where the
>turning back (to French waters) would be done in British waters.

Whereas one *would* expect the British authorities to have jurisdiction
to prevent people entering UK waters, just as they have, or ought to
have, jurisdiction to prevent them landing on the British coast.


--
Algernon

[Norman Wells]

I think we're allowed to repel any who have uninvitedly invaded our
waters and send them back whence they came. That's part of national
sovereignty, as it is anywhere else in the world.

And the border is not the median line in the sea. It is where the big
signs in airports and seaports say 'UK Border', where you normally have
to show your passport or visa:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-august-24-2018-air-1210708693

[Roland Perry]

In message <tbmJc6EZ...@invalid.com>, at 09:34:33 on Sun, 12 Sep
2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:

>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted
>>In message <iq3bsg...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:40:33 on Sat, 11
>>Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>On 11/09/2021 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> I'd be happier with his advice if he acknowledged a the Channel
>>>>isn't international waters, and therefore the law will be different
>>>>from off the cost of Australia. For turning the boats back, anyway.
>>>
>>>He did in the radio interview I linked to previously.
>>
>>He mentioned that the Australian scheme worked because the
>>interception *was* in international waters,
>
>That seems counter-intuitive. One would not expect the Australian
>authorities to have any jurisdiction over vessels in international
>waters. So what is it that gives them this right to turn back boats
>that enter them?

If you listen to the broadcast (Norman has posted a url) their view was
that the boaters were attempting to break Australian law by smuggling
themselves into the country, so the measure was justified. They got away
with it, but what I struggle with is their assertion that "therefore the
UK could too", despite significant differences in the circumstances.

>>and didn't address what would be different in the channel, where the
>>turning back (to French waters) would be done in British waters.
>
>Whereas one *would* expect the British authorities to have jurisdiction
>to prevent people entering UK waters,

They'd be in French waters, to do that. Would the French agree - and if
they didn't would the UK send gunboats anyway?

>just as they have, or ought to have, jurisdiction to prevent them
>landing on the British coast.

The "International Law" in question is apparently that if someone sinks
their boat in your territorial waters you MUST rescue them, and bring
them ashore.

The Australians apparently sent alternative "practically unsinkable"
boats, fished the people out of the water (despite the Indonesian
government disapproving), stuck them on board, and gave them the
latitude/longitude of an alternative destination.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq5sl7...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:39:02 on Sun, 12

I don't think that's the case when the border in question is the point
at sea where you are obliged to give assistance to boaters in difficulty
(self-inflicted or otherwise).

--
Roland Perry

[Andy Leighton]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:31:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tbmJc6EZ...@invalid.com>, at 09:34:33 on Sun, 12 Sep
> 2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:

>>That seems counter-intuitive. One would not expect the Australian
>>authorities to have any jurisdiction over vessels in international
>>waters. So what is it that gives them this right to turn back boats
>>that enter them?
>
> If you listen to the broadcast (Norman has posted a url) their view was
> that the boaters were attempting to break Australian law by smuggling
> themselves into the country, so the measure was justified. They got away
> with it, but what I struggle with is their assertion that "therefore the
> UK could too", despite significant differences in the circumstances.

Australia got away with it because they are the major power in their
portion of the world and have more and bigger friends than Indonesia.
That really isn't the case between the UK and France hence we really
can't do anything without the agreement of the French.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnsjrrba....@azaal.plus.com>, at 07:07:06 on Sun,
12 Sep 2021, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> remarked:

>On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:31:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tbmJc6EZ...@invalid.com>, at 09:34:33 on Sun, 12 Sep
>> 2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>
>>>That seems counter-intuitive. One would not expect the Australian
>>>authorities to have any jurisdiction over vessels in international
>>>waters. So what is it that gives them this right to turn back boats
>>>that enter them?
>>
>> If you listen to the broadcast (Norman has posted a url) their view was
>> that the boaters were attempting to break Australian law by smuggling
>> themselves into the country, so the measure was justified. They got away
>> with it, but what I struggle with is their assertion that "therefore the
>> UK could too", despite significant differences in the circumstances.
>
>Australia got away with it because they are the major power in their
>portion of the world and have more and bigger friends than Indonesia.
>That really isn't the case between the UK and France hence we really
>can't do anything without the agreement of the French.

I agree, especially as we have many more irons in the fire regarding
UK-r27 politics than Australia-Indonesia had back then.

You'd think this a particular Aussie talking-head would understand that,
but apparently not.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in but
with whoever discovers them, and they're not obliged as far as I'm aware
to take them wherever they want to go.

[Andy Walker]

On 12/09/2021 12:31, Norman Wells wrote:
> The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in but
> with whoever discovers them, and they're not obliged as far as I'm
> aware to take them wherever they want to go.

Ah. If so, then there's the solution. Instead of employing
BF and RNLI, let's hire some Albanians*, give them seaworthy boats,
and pay them [it sounds as though ~£54M would be available] to seek
out and pick up people in the Channel, and transport them to Albania.

____
* Other countries are available, and perhaps more suitable.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Richards

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq66nt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:31:09 on Sun, 12

And if the French stick to their waters, it's only the English who will
discover them.

>and they're not obliged as far as I'm aware to take them wherever they
>want to go.

Indeed, but they do have to take them somewhere, and if the only readily
available place is the UK...

Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians and
takes them to Xmas Island?
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

What's wrong with returning them to France? It's where they've come
from after all.

> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians and
> takes them to Xmas Island?

The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters, if
necessary using a bit of force to do so.

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun, 12

Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 12/09/2021 17:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <iq66nt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:31:09 on Sun, 12
>>Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 12/09/2021 11:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <iq5sl7...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:39:02 on Sun,
>>>>12 Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 12/09/2021 09:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <iq3bsg...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:40:33 on
>>>>>>Sat, 11  Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 11/09/2021 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>  I'd be happier with his advice if he acknowledged a the
>>>>>>>>Channel isn't  international waters, and therefore the law will
>>>>>>>>be different from off  the cost of Australia. For turning the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

International law, if they scuttle the boat.

>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians
>>and takes them to Xmas Island?
>
>The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters, if
>necessary using a bit of force to do so.

Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be the
case.
--
Roland Perry

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:47:05 AM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:

> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters, if
> necessary using a bit of force to do so.

Meanwhile, over in France:

L'idée est de persuader les bateaux de retourner dans les eaux
britanniques, si nécessaire en utilisant un peu de force pour le
faire.

[Norman Wells]

On 13/09/2021 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun, 12
> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 12/09/2021 17:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <iq66nt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:31:09 on Sun, 12
>>> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> On 12/09/2021 11:32, Roland Perry wrote:

>>>>>  I don't think that's the case when the border in question is the
>>>>> point  at sea where you are obliged to give assistance to boaters
>>>>> in difficulty  (self-inflicted or otherwise).
>>>>
>>>> The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in
>>>> but  with whoever discovers them,

>>>  And if the French stick to their waters, it's only the English who
>>> will  discover them.
>>>
>>>> and they're not obliged as far as I'm aware to take them wherever
>>>> they  want to go.

>>>  Indeed, but they do have to take them somewhere, and if the only
>>> readily  available place is the UK...
>>
>> What's wrong with returning them to France?  It's where they've come
>> from after all.
>
> International law, if they scuttle the boat.

Can you quote the relevant bit of this international law please?

>>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians
>>> and  takes them to Xmas Island?
>>
>> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters, if
>> necessary using a bit of force to do so.
>
> Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be the case.

It's a relative term, 'safe'.

[Norman Wells]

Great minds think alike.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> posted

>On 12/09/2021 12:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>> The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in but
>> with whoever discovers them, and they're not obliged as far as I'm
>> aware to take them wherever they want to go.
>
> Ah. If so, then there's the solution. Instead of employing
>BF and RNLI, let's hire some Albanians*, give them seaworthy boats,
>and pay them [it sounds as though ~£54M would be available] to seek
>out and pick up people in the Channel, and transport them to Albania.

An excellent suggestion.

Moreover, it has been conclusively proven by comfortable, well-paid left
wing academics with secure jobs at prestigious London universities that
an influx of poor unskilled immigrants into any country will boost that
country's prosperity.

So our boat refugees will certainly be welcomed with open arms in
Albania, where the starving, unskilled unemployed will form a parade of
honour to throw flowers over them and beg them to take whatever
starvation-wage jobs are still available there.

--
Algernon

[Roland Perry]

In message <iq8vso...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:52:41 on Mon, 13

Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 13/09/2021 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun, 12
>>Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 12/09/2021 17:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <iq66nt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:31:09 on Sun,
>>>>12 Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 12/09/2021 11:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>>>>  I don't think that's the case when the border in question is the
>>>>>>point  at sea where you are obliged to give assistance to boaters
>>>>>>in difficulty  (self-inflicted or otherwise).
>>>>>
>>>>> The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in
>>>>>but  with whoever discovers them,
>
>>>>  And if the French stick to their waters, it's only the English who
>>>>will  discover them.
>>>>
>>>>> and they're not obliged as far as I'm aware to take them wherever
>>>>>they  want to go.
>
>>>>  Indeed, but they do have to take them somewhere, and if the only
>>>>readily  available place is the UK...
>>>
>>> What's wrong with returning them to France?  It's where they've come
>>>from after all.

>> International law, if they scuttle the boat.
>
>Can you quote the relevant bit of this international law please?

If you mean "will I", then the answer is "no".

>>>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians
>>>>and  takes them to Xmas Island?
>>>
>>> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters,
>>>if necessary using a bit of force to do so.

>> Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be the
>>case.
>
>It's a relative term, 'safe'.

Not-drowning is fairly black and white.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 13/09/2021 13:52, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun, 12
>> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 12/09/2021 17:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <iq66nt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:31:09 on Sun,
>>>> 12 Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 12/09/2021 11:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>>>>  I don't think that's the case when the border in question is the
>>>>>> point  at sea where you are obliged to give assistance to boaters
>>>>>> in difficulty  (self-inflicted or otherwise).
>>>>>
>>>>> The responsibility doesn't lie with those whose waters they're in
>>>>> but  with whoever discovers them,
>
>>>>  And if the French stick to their waters, it's only the English who
>>>> will  discover them.
>>>>
>>>>> and they're not obliged as far as I'm aware to take them wherever
>>>>> they  want to go.
>
>>>>  Indeed, but they do have to take them somewhere, and if the only
>>>> readily  available place is the UK...
>>>
>>> What's wrong with returning them to France?  It's where they've come
>>> from after all.
>>
>> International law, if they scuttle the boat.
>
> Can you quote the relevant bit of this international law please?

Let's start with the United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) Article 98 since that is the one most often quoted when people
cite the need to assist a person in danger of being lost: [1]

Article 98

Duty to render assistance

1. Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so
far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the
passengers:

(a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of
being lost;

(b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such
action may reasonably be expected of him;

(c) after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew
and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship
of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest
port at which it will call.

2. Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and
maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service
regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so
require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with
neighbouring States for this purpose.

Then there's the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) Regulation V-33. [2]

Additionally, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue
(SAR) (Article 2.3) details how coastal states undertake the role to
co-ordinate the SAR in respect of people in specified areas.

There is a duty to organize such services (UNCLOS Article 98 and SOLAS,
Regulation V-7).

There are no provisions in the SAR convention that the particular state
in charge of a specific area can direct foreign vessels whether to
assist or not.

Within the 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, the state has
general jurisdiction on other grounds (including the right to direct
vessels how to assist or not to assist), but this jurisdiction does not
extend to ships in passage assisting other vessels (UNCLOS Articles 17-18).

The maritime rules of law of rescue also apply to stand-by rescuers. As
such, even the ships of humanitarian organisations deployed with no
other purpose than to rescue, can invoke the rules of maritime rescue.
There is a long tradition of such specialized rescuers, and this is
clearly reflected in the international law of remuneration for rescue.
These rules stipulate that professional salvors should receive extra
remuneration to compensate for their preparedness (see for example
International Convention on Salvage Article 13 [4]). These provisions
would be meaningless if the rules did not apply to vessels designated
purely to salvage.

In addition to Maritime Law, one also needs to read relevant judgments
in other courts, by which we're bound. For example, Hirsi Jamaa v
Italy in The European Court of Human Rights (para 178 is particularly
apposite), [5], but there are others.

In sum, there is a duty and a right to render assistance to persons in
danger at sea. This duty applies regardless of whether the rescue
operations are believed to have an undesired pull effect, motivating
refugees and migrants to travel.

In short, it is a complex area of law and reading snippets here and
there is unlikely to provide an answer that is correct, much less one
upon which there is consensus.

A professor of Maritime Law explained it thus: "On land, persons in
danger are assisted if they have driven too fast, been the passenger of
a car driven by a drunk driver, had thoughts of suicide, or caused
themselves illness through bad lifestyle choices."

"Non-assistance to refugees and migrants at sea is not a legal option."

>>>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians
>>>> and  takes them to Xmas Island?
>>>
>>> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters, if
>>> necessary using a bit of force to do so.
>>
>> Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be the case.
>
> It's a relative term, 'safe'.

If they are in danger of being lost at sea, they are not safe. If any
action taken, places them in danger of being lost at sea, they must be
rescued. If "persuading the boats to return to French waters" causes
anyone on board to become in danger of being lost at sea, they must be
rescued.

There is also the issue of what form the persuasion takes. There are
rules regarding collisions at sea, and gentle nudging plus a bit too
much force can quickly escalate into a collision bringing the rules of
collision into play.

Regards

S.P.

[1]
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

[2] https://vp.imo.org/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f [3]

[3] You'll need to create a free login at this site to access it.

[4] https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/imo.salvage.convention.1989/doc.html#61

[5] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109231

[Norman Wells]

On 14/09/2021 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <iq8vso...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:52:41 on Mon, 13
> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 13/09/2021 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun, 12
>>> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> What's wrong with returning them to France?  It's where they've come
>>>> from after all.
>
>>>  International law, if they scuttle the boat.
>>
>> Can you quote the relevant bit of this international law please?
>
> If you mean "will I", then the answer is "no".

I say what I mean, and what I asked was 'can you?'

The answer to that would appear to be 'no' as well, as I expected.

>>>>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the Australians
>>>>> and  takes them to Xmas Island?
>>>>
>>>> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters,
>>>> if  necessary using a bit of force to do so.
>
>>>  Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be the
>>> case.
>>
>> It's a relative term, 'safe'.
>
> Not-drowning is fairly black and white.

'Using a bit of force' and 'causing to drown' are not actually synonymous.

[Clive Page]

On 11/09/2021 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> And that's the stretch where the difficulty arises over "turning back" the boats, because it's directly into French waters, not International waters!!

Is there anything to stop us declaring a 3-mile limit, which is what it was in my youth? That would solve the problem (but might create others I suppose).


--
Clive Page

[Roland Perry]

In message <iqbre8...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:55:04 on Tue, 14
Sep 2021, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

Might cause issues with onshore fishermen (if we have any still left by
now, after BoJo hung them out to dry).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <iqba8v...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:02:07 on Tue, 14

Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 14/09/2021 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <iq8vso...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:52:41 on Mon, 13
>>Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 13/09/2021 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <iq7bb8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:55:53 on Sun,
>>>>12 Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>>>> What's wrong with returning them to France?  It's where they've
>>>>>come from after all.
>>
>>>>  International law, if they scuttle the boat.
>>>
>>> Can you quote the relevant bit of this international law please?
>> If you mean "will I", then the answer is "no".
>
>I say what I mean, and what I asked was 'can you?'
>
>The answer to that would appear to be 'no' as well, as I expected.

I'd just cut and paste what Simon posted, but you can read it for
yourself. With a side order of "don't feed the sealions".

>>>>>> Or are you suggesting the UK Border Agency emulates the
>>>>>>Australians and  takes them to Xmas Island?
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is that we persuade the boats to return to French waters,
>>>>>if  necessary using a bit of force to do so.
>>
>>>>  Only "if safe", which very few people think is ever going to be
>>>>the case.
>>>
>>> It's a relative term, 'safe'.
>> Not-drowning is fairly black and white.
>
>'Using a bit of force' and 'causing to drown' are not actually synonymous.

But are in practice on the high seas, with the sort of boats concerned,
cause and effect.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

Article 3 of the United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
permits the breadth of the terrorial sea to be established up to a limit
not exceeding 12 nautical miles

So that seems a great start because 3 miles is "not exceeding 12
nautical miles".

However, Article 98 goes on to state:

2. Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and
maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service
regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so
require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with
neighbouring States for this purpose.

The UK cannot just unilateraly declare a reduced search and rescue
service in the Channel without the co-operation of France.

Finally, if the reduction from 12 miles to 3 miles is designed to reduce
the number of rescue operations required it is clear that the new system
would not be "adequate and effective".

If you're looking for an innovative solution, one or more Venezuelan
flagged merchant vessel(s) could sail the 12 mile line and rescue any
migrantvessels they come across and take those they rescue to the next
port at which they intended calling without needing to bring them either
to the UK or to France, but many would see that for what it is.

Regards

S.P.