We have to get out!

Seems we’re not allowed to even send asylum seekers back to Greece because that country is now too poor!

Mail.

Britain has been stripped of its power to return asylum seekers to Greece – after a ruling by European judges.
The decision by the Luxembourg court risks plunging the entire European asylum system into chaos – and leaving border controls in this country hamstrung.
An immigration watchdog warned the ruling would open a ‘perfect back door into Britain’.
Under EU rules British officials can return asylum seekers to the first European country they set foot in.
But today the European Court of Justice said no-one should be returned to a country if it did not uphold their ‘fundamental rights’.
This means Britain cannot send asylum seekers back to Greece because its asylum system is such a mess.
The ruling also opens the door for claims against other countries on the grounds their asylum systems are not up to scratch.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch said: ‘This makes Greece the perfect back door into Britain.
‘In future, asylum seekers who are not, in fact, genuine will claim that they have come through Greece, whether or not they have.
‘It also undermines the agreement which provides for asylum seekers to be sent back to the first EU country in which they arrived.’
Around 90 per cent of illegal immigrants who arrive in Europe do so through Greece, placing enormous strain on the country’s immigration system.

You have to be a bit careful with stories like this in the Mail, but this time they seem to have their facts pretty straight as the official release shows.

This is a direct attack on our sovereignty and our borders, there’s simply no reason now for any immigrant simply to claim they did not enter the EU via Greece and there’s not a damned thing we can do to send them back. This is going to pave the way to anarchy on top of another ruling by EU courts that we cannot deny asylum seekers and immigrants access to out benefits system.

We simply cannot afford to keep handing out money to those who do not live here and who have not contributed in any way shape or form to our economy. That’s just simple common sense and it’s just been trampled under by this idiotic ruling. Ask most people in the UK including settled immigrants and they’ll tell you they don’t give a toss as to where we send asylum seekers so long as they don’t stay here. Most aren’t seeking asylum at all, they’re simply economic migrants to whom even our benefits system is generous beyond belief compared to what they are used too.

We simply cannot afford this idiocy – the sooner we get out by any means, the better.

14 comments for “We have to get out!

  1. December 23, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    This latest outrage, coupled with the fact that any one of us can be extradited to Greece via the EAW, is so farcical that it cannot but wake the great somnolent corpus from their self-inflicted slumber.

    Is it any wonder that our militarised police are being hastily trained in riot ‘management’ as we speak?

    We must be careful to caution our more hot-headed brethren not to play into the bastards’ hands. They’re just looking for an excuse to bring in more draconian controls.

    You can be sure that if there is serious rioting, the military will be sent in.

    Have you noticed how militarised the UK is becoming? Not just the police, but the introduction of the army into civil life.

    The powers suggested using it for the riots, then to man immigration queues at airports, then to ‘police’ the Olympics.

    They are acclimatising us. They want us to get used to being ‘policed’ by the military.

    People need to realise that the police, under the Peel doctrine, are there to keep the peace and to investigate criminal activity and do so only with our consent. The military is trained to kill, acting under martial law where civilians have no rights at all. Not even, it seems, those ‘protected’ under the Geneva Convention.

    The US constitution is very clear about the not allowing the army to ‘police’ civilians – for very good reason. It was one of the triggers of its revolution.

    We ought to wake up and resist – at all costs. The powers know there will be mass unrest and heaven help us if they use the military to quell it.

    We do not live in democratic times.

  2. Mudplugger
    December 23, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Another interesting parallel is in that dodgy PIP breast-implant story currently headlining.

    These implants, featuring industrial rather than medical grade material, were approved by the French licensing authority, therefore the UK authorities had no power to re-test or over-rule that under EU regulations. (Seems clear any bill for corrective surgery should be send to the French – but we can bet it won’t be).

    Yet another good reason why we need to be out of that corrupt and corrupting club asap.

  3. December 23, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    We simply cannot afford to keep handing out money to those who do not live here and who have not contributed in any way shape or form to our economy.

    Quite true, but what I don’t understand is why countries try to deal with the much harder task of stopping the fake asylum seekers coming in in order to solve the money problem rather than just stop giving them money in order to stop the fake asylum seeker problem? Just say: “Look, sorry, but the money ran out a while back and really we’ve been going at this longer than we can afford anyway, so everyone arriving from tomorrow gets absolutely nothing at all. We can’t give you accommodation, we can’t give you benefits, we can’t get your family here, we can’t even give you any help learning English, much less print everything in your own language. We won’t try to stop you coming in but once you’re here your options are charity, self support or starving to death in a doorway, and if you’re hoping to steal to survive then be aware that crime will get you deported back to your country of origin or any that will have you, and if the only reason they want you is to stand you blindfolded against a wall that’s your problem, not ours.”

    Rhetorical question, of course. I can guess why the UK doesn’t say it – the EU probably won’t let it. Which brings things back to the title of Quiet_Man’s post.

  4. December 23, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    This looks rather like a re-write of my story here …

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-we-must-leave-2.html

    By all means do so, but what is your problem with acknowledging the source of your inspiration?

    • QM
      December 23, 2011 at 10:49 pm

      I was unaware of your post until after I’d actually written this one. Although it was posted today it has been held in draft form by the site owners here since yesterday. (which they can attest)
      I do however acknowledge the superiority of your post which is pretty much what I would have liked to have said, though I was more concentrating on the cost to the UK, rather than the implications on the rights of UK citizens.
      I realise I cannot prove this other than the by the site owners admission on timing, but truly this is a coincidence as I do tend to focus on uncontrolled immigration and the affect it has on the UK.

    • December 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm

      Richard, I’ve done some checking. The DM piece was updated at 8:46 AM on 22nd December 2011. You seem to refer to it on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:56 pm on your forum. You quote someone who accessed a post dated 21 December 2011 at 13:40. QM scheduled his post on the 21st or early on the 22nd, as far as I can see by our records.

      What generally happens is that authors save to draft and one of the admins then comes in at some stage and schedules. We run 3 and sometimes 4 pieces a day, depending on how many there are. I recall we were pretty heavily booked up to the 23rd but not so much on the 24th [now full]. QM was postponed because Ironies needed his up when it went up.

      While the matter is unclear, the style is similar and I can see where you’re coming from. QM says he didn’t see your piece and I can’t comment on that, except to say we haven’t had this sort of issue before. We don’t exert editorial control on trusted authors [long-time] but if anything comes out of this, it’s that authors need to be supercareful at all times. Authors have generally linked at will in posts and I can’t see any reason why it would not be so here, e.g. “as Richard North says” – it’s no skin off anyone’s nose. It’s the sort of thing we do as bloggers.

      I can’t really add any more than that at this time.

      • December 24, 2011 at 5:52 am

        I think it’s inevitable that – given we are all fishing in the same pool – we’ll all hit on the same topic to comment on at some point.

        Because I tend to schedule a ‘block’ of posts over a few days period, I have noticed, on occasion, that other blogs I read have done the same. If my post has published in the meantime, I usually add an update with link, saying (in effect) ‘Bucko disagrees, and says…’ or ‘House of Dumb also notes that…’

        Occasionally, if my post hasn’t published yet, and I have others to take its place, I’ll think ‘Hmmm, Leg-Iron’s covered that so much better!’ and just delete mine!

        The main thing to note is that each piece – while referring to the same ‘Mail’ story – is entirely consistent with its writer’s ‘style’.

        And, far more importantly, each comes to the same conclusion. The right one! 😉

      • December 24, 2011 at 11:54 am

        James … as you quite rightly say … we do tend to acknowledge each other’s work: “It’s the sort of thing we do as bloggers”.

        Apart from the timing, which fits, there are too many similarities with my post, including the title, the caution about accepting the Mail unchecked, and the “curia” link, for me to accept that this was pure coincidence.

        One of the strengths we have as bloggers is that we are part of a continuum – the blogsphere – which takes some of its strength from our acknowledgement of the existence of other toilers in the fields.

        I think that is important – especially when we have the weight of the MSM against us. I am sorry that view does not seem to be shared in action as well as principle.

    • December 24, 2011 at 9:51 pm

      I’m personally in a difficult position on this because I count both parties as close and I believe in what both are doing. It’s all so unfortunate when we’re basically on the same team. Apart from the timing, which I tried to get to the bottom of, there’s also a significant point that nothing like this has come up with QM as far as we know and some of us know him well – it’s not his style.

      Then there are your points, Richard.

      In terms of OoL, we’re acutely conscious that whitewashing something is not on, particularly given the nature of the blog’s message and we’re also dead against plagiarism – I’ve been on the receiving end myself personally a few times. We’re also aware of what Mandy Rice-Davies might have said in response to this statement.

      The good which has come out is that readers are obviously going to be more focussed on the issue than before and more than one pundit who visits here might be quietly stroking the chin and thinking, “Hmmmm,” about his own situation.

      We can’t really add any more at this stage, other than what we’ve said. People will make their own judgements.

      • December 25, 2011 at 9:39 am

        On a balance of probabilities, I believe the coincidence explanation. Most of us who use the Mail as a source will tend to note a caveat given its reputation. Both RN and QM are focussed on EU issues and it is no surprise, therefore that they would both comment on this story. it is no surprise that they reach the same conclusions and say much the same thing.

        As Julia said earlier, given the nature of the medium, this is pretty inevitable sooner or later.

        As an aside, we may need to review this posting as draft and scheduling in the New Year. I don’t know how others feel, but sometimes a story goes off the boil by the time it gets published.

        Our original intention was to avoid lots of people posting at once. I’m not so sure that is an issue now.

        Thoughts?

        • December 25, 2011 at 9:55 am

          I think, if a story is topical and an author needs it published on a certain date, including an instruction in the title should suffice.

          • December 25, 2011 at 10:42 am

            As it turns out, James has responded to me on this. See the admin note I’ve just published.

Comments are closed.