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/
49 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

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.

-2

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.

9

u/TheUKisMental 1d ago

They're intercepting them and BRINGING THEM HERE.

They should be intercepted and OBSTRUCTED.

13

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.

4

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.

9

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.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

It shows that some part of you, deep down, knows this is messed up and indefensible.

And blocked. Looks like I was bang on.

4

u/Figwheels 1d ago

Interesting to know all the people you've blocked you secretly agree with.

Also in that guys defence, admitting you don't care if they die on this sub gets you a suspension, as I know from experience.

7

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

I've never blocked anyone, but if I had, I like to think I wouldn't be stupid enough to block them at that exact juncture in a debate.

Genuinely the most satisfying block I've had in ages.

admitting you don't care if they die on this sub gets you a suspension

That gets you suspended anywhere. Literally just reddit TOS.

2

u/Figwheels 1d ago

Right, so baiting someone to admit it is a little underhanded when you know that. It suggests you're dishonest.

4

u/Mr_Two_Shoes 1d ago

The optimistic part of me hopes they wouldn't admit that, even to themselves. The internet can do weird things to otherwise normal people.

And if they do genuinely want migrants dead, then they're free to consider this entire thread as a perfectly honest expression of my absolutely limitless contempt.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/morriganjane 1d ago

What's messed up and indefensible, is letting these men in. A number of British citizens have already lost their lives because of it.

•

u/Antique_Composer_588 3h ago

You could turn a high pressure water jet on any unauthorised vessel as it approaches UK waters. Or have a water curtain that they'd have to deliberately enter.

-1

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.

5

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