1St Of Many?

[Clone]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/11/court-gives-gazans-right-settle-uk-palestine-ukraine/#:~:text=A%20family%20of%20six%20seeking,application%20breached%20their%20human%20rights.

 

Marvelous.

[jourdain2]

Yes, it will be, a beachhead has been established -- unless of course we actually say 'whoa!',  which we won't.

Some parts of our country aren't recognisably, cohesively 'ours' any more are they?

 

[Old_Geezer]

How can it breach their human rights ?

They are quite capable of asking their UK resident families to join them where they find some nation willing to take them.

[ChatPGTips]

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Britain is an obligated signatory to protect individuals fleeing persecution, as we did for the Jews in the Second World War. Do you think we should renege on this?

[ToraToraTora]

Perlease what the eff in hell is happenning!

[ChatPGTips]

There is no eff in hell. Please explain. 

[youngmafbog]

So no Arab States will have the because they bare violent nasty people yet we have them

God give me strength.

The UK really has had it.

[gulliver1]

And Brexit was all about immigration! .But whoa these are refugees.

[davebro3]

The immigration aspect of Brexit was about (mainly eastern) Europeans (and any future EU countries) having the absolute right to come and live/work in the UK.

Nothing at all to do with immigration legal or otherwise from anywhere else.

But, of course, you knew that didn't you.

[Old_Geezer]

We shouldn't need to renege on any convention.

The Palestine area is nowhere near the UK so there is no reason for them to go that far to find refuge. So if they get here they are very likely to be economic migrants,  not refugees.

(On the other hand, if they can't agree refuge nearer to them, there has to be a very good reason why everyone is making them an exception to such a convention, and we should consider doing the same.)

In addition, one can only assume the Ukraine related legislation was poorly written since legislation relating to an agreement with one particular nation should not be able to be applied willy-nilly to other nations.

(Of course it may just be a poor interpretation by the judge in question.)

If Palestinians want the same sort of deal then they need to get their government to negotiate their own agreement with ours.

[New Judge]

“Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Britain is an obligated signatory to protect individuals fleeing persecution, as we did for the Jews in the Second World War.”

Yes but you need to read the entire article rather than (as seems common practice) just the bit that suits.

What you say applies only if they come “…directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.”  I imagine most Jews in WW2 met that requirement because much of Europe was under threat from Nazi invasion (if not already occupied).

As OG points out, that means they would need to arrive either on a direct flight from Gaza or by sea without putting into port before their arrival. I’m not too sure they could meet that requirement.

Otherwise, far from being obliged  to accept them, the receiving state can impose penalties on them for illegal entry. However, the UN seems to have unilaterally decided that particular requirement no longer exists. But it does and receiving states should either insist on its enforcement or withdraw from the Convention. 

My preference would be the latter but the UK won’t do that “in case it makes us look bad”. Meanwhile in order to look good the World (usually without his wife, who will follow later with the children and extended family, so as to preserve all of their “human rights”) will have to be accommodated here.

[Clone]

Starmer says the decision is wrong but hasn't said it will be appealed.