Ukraine and the European Community

[Gerry Glyde]

Well Olly, you should not believe it as it is not true. I have been involved in immigration and asylum law and can assure you that asylum seekers have to go through a process of interviews providing amongst other things, information of names, people and places events and circumstances of which they state make them at risk of persecution. I attended many interviews with clients at various Immigration Offices across the North east and North West and my experience was the same of the thoroughness of interview and in some case a re-interview.

Those claims would then be investigated against any intelligence available through the Embassy in the country of origin. While no doubt some do manage on balance to convince the Immigration office of the risk many do not. If people did not have to substantiate their claims then there would not be any forced repatriations but there are many who are put on aircraft and returned to their country of origin.

[Richard]

[quoted]
Gerry Glyde wrote:
The Black Sea has been the home port of the Russian Fleet back to the times of the Crimean war and before. I also know that another country has military bases situated in foreign countries. Britain leased Diego Garcia to the Americans (and exiled the inhabitants). It has a base in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay, it also has a base in a former Soviet state I think Kazakhstan. Russia is protecting it's influence in the same way that other power blocs protect their own.
[/quoted]

Sevastopol (a proud part of Russian imperial might since the 1700's) was transferred to Ukrainian control under Nikita Khrushchev (an ethnic Ukrainian) in 1954.
In 1991 Ukraine broke a way from the Soviet Union
The reason for the black mark against Yanukovych was a deeply divisive leasing deal, on very favourable terms to the Russians.
Doubtless Russia will want to keep the strategically important base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol but it would be difficult for them to take the region out of Ukraine as it has a mixed tribal diversity incluing quite a few Tartars who were exiled under Stalin and hence would not want to join with Russia again.

Diego Garcia has been British since 1800 and is a tiny and remote coral atoll island in the middle of the Indian ocean with only a coconut and fishing lifestyle to support its (exiled) inhabitants.




Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

[Richard]

[quoted]
Gerry Glyde wrote:
The EU is however not some sort of foreign state that dictates to Britain; it is in effect under the direction of international capital and free markets as is shown by the involvement of the IMF determining policies of Greece and Italy and even imposed a Prime Minister in the latter.
Capitalism does not recognise the borders of countries.
[/quoted]

I disagree somewhat Gerry,
Germany basically sets the rate for the Euro which affects the above euro members and was the cause of many of their problems and the fact that the IMF became involved was on the back of that and thankfully we are not part of that set-up.
Euro M.P.'s make decisions in Brussels that directly affect our jobs, our family lives, the health care we get, rules about recycling and energy.
We do not know how many laws affecting Britain originate in Brussels and how many would have been implemented regardless but, in fairness, many are regulatory laws as opposed to budgetary ones.

So there are two issues, financial and legal which do show that Brussels and Germany indeed have the ability to virtually dictate on some levels and let us not forget the European Court of Law.
The Maastricht treaty does virtually create a foreign state and is constitutionally dangerous because the effect of Maastricht will be to create a new sovereign state.
The European Union, allied to the European Communities, will have all the features commonly associated with sovereignty e.g. governance over all the inhabitants of a distinct territory, a structure of central government whose orders cannot be ignored.







Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

[roy]

[quoted]
Gerry Glyde wrote:
Well Olly, you should not believe it as it is not true. I have been involved in immigration and asylum law and can assure you that asylum seekers have to go through a process of interviews providing amongst other things, information of names, people and places events and circumstances of which they state make them at risk of persecution. I attended many interviews with clients at various Immigration Offices across the North east and North West and my experience was the same of the thoroughness of interview and in some case a re-interview.

Those claims would then be investigated against any intelligence available through the Embassy in the country of origin. While no doubt some do manage on balance to convince the Immigration office of the risk many do not. If people did not have to substantiate their claims then there would not be any forced repatriations but there are many who are put on aircraft and returned to their country of origin.
[/quoted]



I would be interested to know what percentage are actually deported,When you consider how the backlog has built up it seems to show that more arrive than are removed.




Enjoy life.you never know when it will end.

[Richard]

I don't quite know how we migrated onto this topic but it misses the point somewhat as many desperate or deluded people are pushed in the direction of the UK by camps set up on the French side of the Channel to direct refugees in our direction (remember Sangatte refugee camp?).

Now, typically these tired people will never apply for refugee status or go through all the rigmarole of officialdom and would much prefer to slip into the large 'hidden' number of immigrants who have no name or identity and exist in the shadows possibly being abused as slave labour or eventually receiving passports illegally by the many means available to ingenious criminal activity.
Do we know how many exist illegally?
I have indicated what is likely the easiest preferred route to slipping into our country undetected.










Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

[Olly]

[quoted]
Gerry Glyde wrote:
Well Olly, you should not believe it as it is not true. I have been involved in immigration and asylum law[/quoted]

Thank you for declaring an interest in this subject, Gerry. Now let me read what else you have to say on the subject . . .

[quoted]and can assure you that asylum seekers have to go through a process of interviews providing amongst other things, information of names, people and places events and circumstances of which they state make them at risk of persecution.[/quoted]

I was being a bit flippant in saying that 'all they need to do is utter the word asylum and they're in'; the question though (going on to what you subsequently say) is how many stories are diligently checked and (more to the point?) verified with the relevant embassies? How do we know what the diplomatic wheels are turning with a view to getting rid of the indigenous criminal fraternities, including paedophiles, rapists, thieves, beggars etc. by the equivalent of the Home Office in those countries? I need hardly need to mention the most recent sexual abuse case perpetrated against vulnerable English girls by - would you believe? - Romas! Jesus christ, you could make it up. So much then for . . .

[quote]I attended many interviews with clients at various Immigration Offices across the North east and North West and my experience was the same of the thoroughness of interview and in some case a re-interview.[/quoted]

'the thoroughness of interview and in some cases a re-interview'? Some cases - yeah, right! :erm: And the UKBA isn't exactly distinguished for its diligence and competence is it!

[quote]If people did not have to substantiate their claims then there would not be any forced repatriations but there are many who are put on aircraft and returned to their country of origin.
[/quoted]

Yes, and how many times do we read about criminals, who've been convicted here, being deported - eventually]/i], if you please, after probably 3 or 4 appeals at yet more expense to the poor bloody taxpayer in addition to the previous cost of Court fees and temporary custody - who've decided they like it here, and have come back to commit some more? And after doing time at our expense in overcrowded prisons [i]first?? FCS how bloody surreal is that! And the real joke is that according to the politicians and simple-minded liberal busy bodies (and immigration lawyers mayhap Gerry??), they came here 'to find work' in a country with a 2.5m unemployment figure!!! Jesus wept it's like the politics of the bloody madhouse. Actually 'madhouse' just about sums up today's UK; we've were designated as the rubbish bin of the EU and it's beginning to show big-time. Wake up and smell it Gerry. Oh, and in the meantime don't keep up the good work!! :laugh:

ps the text enhancements for emphasis on this board - italicising and underlining - are a bit hit and miss but I can't keep on going back and editing to put it right. Sorry

[Olly]

[quoted]
Richard wrote:
I don't quite know how we migrated onto this topic but it misses the point somewhat as many desperate or deluded people are pushed in the direction of the UK by camps set up on the French side of the Channel to direct refugees in our direction (remember Sangatte refugee camp?).

Now, typically these tired people will never apply for refugee status or go through all the rigmarole of officialdom and would much prefer to slip into the large 'hidden' number of immigrants who have no name or identity and exist in the shadows possibly being abused as slave labour or eventually receiving passports illegally by the many means available to ingenious criminal activity.
Do we know how many exist illegally?
I have indicated what is likely the easiest preferred route to slipping into our country undetected.







[/quoted]

Exactly, and Sangatte was merely the last stage of the journey, completion of which was enthusiastically expedited by the French - and who could blame them! 'If the stupid rosbifs are daft enough to welcome them, let's help them on their way.'

:w00t:

[jorgea]

I don't think the European union would embrace Ukraine with open arms.

[Richard]

Well apparently that was just what was intended:
The European Union and Ukraine signed the core elements of a political association on 21'st March 2014.
The same deal former president Viktor Yanukovich rejected last November, a move which led to his overthrow.
The deal commits Ukraine and the EU to closer political and economic cooperation, although more substantial parts of the agreement concerning free trade will only be signed after Ukraine has held new presidential elections in May.

Now we have Putin and his cohorts attempting to thwart these aspirations and only he is preventing closer ties - for the time being.
A power struggle continues...

[Jan135]

And now there's a war between Russia and Ukraine.