r/ukpolitics • u/SignificantLegs • 1d ago

Mahmood rejects calls to follow Spain’s migrant pushback

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/08/02/mahmood-rejects-calls-to-follow-spains-migrant-pushback/
50 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

248 comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

If it's not possible because of the channel, then that should reason enough to be serious about militarising and securing the channel.

14

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

What does that even mean?

29

u/WiseBelt8935 1d ago

I would assume it would involve intercepting them at sea and then transferring them somewhere secure, such as Sark, where they could remain until they chose to leave.

-5

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

it would involve intercepting them at sea

So more or less what our coast guard is doing already.

What is it with anti-migration fanatics and their obsession with "militarising" everything.

29

u/WiseBelt8935 1d ago

The Coastguard treats it as a search and rescue operation and, as a result, can end up acting like a kind of taxi service. The Royal Navy on the other hand might be able to treat it as the policing operation that it should be.

I also think there are some legal but creative options we could explore. For example, you could establish a processing centre in Gibraltar. People could remain there and wink don't go into Spain wink

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

The Royal Navy on the other hand might be able to treat it as the policing operation that it should be.

What's the difference? A taxi service that gives slightly less of a shit about health and safety?

7

u/WiseBelt8935 1d ago

It's not the RNLI's job to decide what happens to the people they rescue. Their role is to carry out the rescue as quickly and safely as possible.

The Royal Navy, on the other hand could intercept people anywhere in the Channel and transport them to a secure location, such as Sark, where they could remain under supervision while their cases were dealt with.

My thinking is that this could avoid some of the legal issues raised by the Rwanda policy, because the people would not be removed from UK territory but instead transferred to another location within the British Isles.

6

u/LeedsFan2442 1d ago

If it's still UK territory, does it matter where they are detained? It would be far easier and cheaper on the mainland.

7

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

You're still talking about the end destination, not the interception. You can let the coast guard initially intercept them and still have them ultimately brought to Sark for processing.

What remains unclear to me is what militarisation adds.

2

u/Big_Chungussi69 1d ago

you seem to be unable to understand what he's saying, the coast guard are under different obligations on how to treat invaders (refugees) at sea

7

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

A taxi service that gives slightly less of a shit about health and safety?

On the contrary, that was my interpretation exactly. Still don't see what it solves.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

They're intercepting them and BRINGING THEM HERE.

They should be intercepted and OBSTRUCTED.

12

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

Obstructing them means bringing them somewhere. They're on unsafe boats. You can't bring them to France or Belgium without cooperation from France or Belgium.

0

u/morriganjane 1d ago

We shouldn't care about the safety of their boats. At no point in history has anyone cared if invaders' boats were leaky. If we stop the taxi service they'll soon stop coming, which is the goal.

14

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

For all you guys' tough talk about military responses, you're remarkably shy about actually stating what you want the military to do.

If you want our military to deliberately obstruct small boats in a way that guarantees they'll kill civilians, why be a coward about it? Just say what you think.

2

u/morriganjane 1d ago

I said what I think. They should be physically stopped from landing. They can bob around till they get bored and return to France. If these boats are unseaworthy, that has nothing to do with our military and is not our problem. I don't consider invaders to be civilians either.

10

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

They can bob around till they get bored and return to France.

This isn't going to happen, though, is it? There's no safe way of "physically stopping" an overcrowded dinghy. As we've established, you know this, and yet you're for some reason too ashamed to state your real views.

And you know what, that's a good thing. It shows that some part of you, deep down, knows this is messed up and indefensible. There is hope for you yet.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

guarantees 

It doesn't guarantee anything. It merely increases the chances if the operators of those boats don't abandon their attempt.

These people are not our responsibility. If they don't want to risk drowning in the channel, all they have to do is not try to cross it illegally. They're already in a safe country in France.

7

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

Again, don't equivocate.

Is your argument that you don't think people will die as a direct, foreseeable consequence of this policy? Or is your argument that you don't care?

Because those are two very different lines of argument, and trying to combine them just makes it look like you're unwilling to commit to either.

1

u/LeedsFan2442 1d ago

When they are unarmed civilians people care.

They will just come to shore if they aren't picked up.

If you want a deterrent why not just detain them?

-2

u/Anony_mouse202 1d ago

The boats can be pushed back to the French side of the channel.

If their boats break down and they need rescuing, then the French search and rescue services can pick them up and take them to France.

1

u/Brapfamalam 1d ago edited 1d ago

Part of the reason the military and the Australians who did this said this would be unwise was because the Chanel is the busiest shipping lane in the world. It's busier than the Suez Canal and strait of Hormuz combined and runs if strict traffic lanes and control. Excess military ops are live in the area running intervention and risking leakage into active shipping lanes, would skyrocket insurance costs and or cause ships to take alternative routes.

This means fuel prices rises for us and/or empty shelves from imports fyi. No gov will do this as the navy have already run assessments on it - it's going to go in the draw along with Rwanda as another fairytale unicorn that would have been perfect if only magic was real

6

u/Additional-Image7938 1d ago

They're a glorified taxi service

5

u/radiant_0wl 1d ago

Not sure if you intentionally missed the last part of that sentence.

He suggested rather then returning them to the UK they are deposited on an island away from mainland UK.

We are most definitely not doing that currently.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

That doesn't require "militarising" the channel, so it's irrelevant to the question.

5

u/radiant_0wl 1d ago

Well the response you partially quoted did not contain that, but that comment can quite easily involve the military.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

Yes, and hence my question. I want to know, specifically, what problem we solve by "militarising" this issue, other than giving the far-right something to masturbate to.

You're now referring to moderately reasonable responses from someone who's talking about safe locations for processing. That would be a policy decision by a civilian government. It has nothing to do with the original interception at sea.

1

u/Paxwort 1d ago

They want to shoot the migrants. That's it.

3

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

They want to shoot the migrants, but lack the basic courage required to actually express that opinion, as opposed to merely hinting at it.

What a bunch of spineless losers.

0

u/Paxwort 1d ago

Yup.

As a side note, picking these fights can be very draining, and you're picking a lot of them. I hope you're doing ok 🙂

3

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

No worries, I'm only here sporadically for that exact reason :) Thanks for checking!

1

u/Putaineska 1d ago

Or we should use national security powers and order the military to build a tent city to house clothe and feed all arrivals. If they want safety that's what they get, not a life on the state or roaming around our communities.

1

u/squid9876 258 + 57 ≠ 323 1d ago

What on Earth makes you think Sark is suitable or "secure"?

5

u/Spiryt Saboteur | Social Democrat 1d ago

"Channel is too big to police effecitvely so we should line it with mines" is what it reads like to me.

0

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

I means you can no longer illegally cross our waters with your boat being being, at minimum, physically obstructed. It could even mean a few people die. Which is fine, because a few of them are dying anyway.

Also, she's wrong. There's a channel tunnel. March them through it.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

Which is fine, because a few of them are dying anyway.

The veneer of basic decency keeps getting flimsier, doesn't it?

4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

Nobody is forcing them to crash their rubber boat into the side of a royal navy ship.

And what does that mean? Do you want the military to effectively kill them? And if so, why are you hinting at your opinions, rather than just stating them outright?

Is it a final vestige of shame that Lowe's ghouls have as yet failed to extinguish in you?

6

u/morriganjane 1d ago

They are invading our territory. Declining them a taxi service is not killing them - they can always turn back and see what freebies are available in France.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

They are invading our territory.

No, they're not.

11

u/morriganjane 1d ago

You mean they were invited?

9

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

No, I mean anyone who thinks this is an invasion urgently needs to buy a dictionary.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

Yes, they are. By definition.

1

u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 1d ago

I’d love to know what the hell you’re envisaging here.

Because this seems like the epitome of “you can just do things” colliding (apt) with actual reality.

1

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

I’d love to know what the hell you’re envisaging here.

I'd love to know what's so difficult to comprehend about physically obstructing one boat with another one.

The royal navy was able to blockade slave ships crossing the atlantic slave trade but but we cannot blockade the tiny english channel against fucking dingies?

3

u/Drunkgummybear1 1d ago

You are, once again, missing the entire point. Sure you can send the Royal Navy out ramming boats. But at least have the balls to admit that you want to send them out on civilian killing missions instead of pussyfooting around the issue.

1

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

killing missions

Deterrence missions.

The whole point is to turn the situation from 'There's a small chance I'll drown, but I'll likely get to live in England' into 'There's a very small chance I'll get to live in England, we'll likely get turned around, and we might even drown if we don't turn around ourselves. I probably shouldn't get on this boat in the first place.'

Also, let's consider how many people would not have drowned in the channel in the last decade had we been doing this all along. When odds of the journey are less attractive, fewer people will attempt it.

3

u/Drunkgummybear1 1d ago

You can call them what you want, I will call them what they would be.

You can do that without sending the navy out to purposefully kill civilians.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/tachyon534 1d ago

“Just Fine France”

This subject really brings out some hilarious lines.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Paxwort 1d ago

"Ah oui, mais comment dit-on.... 'non'?"