Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.

The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.
Completely agree with your first point. It has to fit our ethos. The current set up (which a disturbing number of people seem okay with in my opinion) isn't. It's unfair, favours the fitter or wealthier, is dangerous and enriches criminal gangs whilst creating unknown levels of migrants whom we then have to check, care for and ingratiate into society at not inconsiderable cost.

Doing the right thing DOES cost money, I dont mind that. Im proud we are one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors even after the recent cut. But the point is we are NOT doing the right thing at the moment.

I think this is worth trying. No one forces anyone to come here, by definition they are in a safe country at the moment and there are legal means to coming to the country they can (and should) try.

None of us know if this policy will work, but I suspect it is worth trying and I wonder whether it is something other countries will do - we know already Denmark (centre left govt btw) is at least talking about this - does anyone know if their scheme is in operation and working?