Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not going to deny that persecution is rife in other parts of the world, but to suggest that all of those people are likely to end up on our shores is simply alarmist nonsense, and it's straight out of the Britain First/BNP playbook.

I'm not trying to suggest that everyone from those parts of the World would come to the UK - that's clearly ridiculous. But it's undeniable that a significant proportion of people from poorer countries/people suffering persecution would if they could, and do not attempt to do so largely because it is so difficult. The barriers that the UK - along with virtually all Western governments - put up to make it hard for people to come to live here are regrettably necessary, unpleasant though it is to have those barriers.

What's wrong with wanting to move to a place where economic conditions are better than where you currently live? It's what people have done for thousands of years.

There is of course absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I don't believe I have ever said anything to suggest there is. As you say, wanting to move in order to improve your life is a perfectly normal thing. Probably almost all of us have done or considered doing that some point (albeit, for most of us, not to a different country). The problem is simply that there's no way the UK could possibly accommodate all the people who would move here if they could - which is one reason we have immigration controls.

what difference does it make that some people happen to come from outwith the UK?

Two differences: The likely numbers involved, and the issues of integrating people who may not be familiar with the UK/Western way of life and - because of the culture in which they were brought up - may not share values such as democracy, tolerance, rule of law, respect for women's rights or gay rights, etc. Sweden, for example, appears to have become a rather unfortunate example of what happens when you don't think about those kinds of things.

We have chronic shortages in certain industries while we're effectively incarcerating people who may be able to fulfil those needs. It makes absolutely no sense that we're locking up people who could be an asset to us.

We already have a skilled worker visa scheme to allow people to come to the UK to work in specific occupations for which there is a shortage of workers. If you want to address the problem of specific shortages, expanding that scheme would probably be a better targeted approach.

 

[najaB]

The problem is simply that there's no way the UK could possibly accommodate all the people who would move here if they could - which is one reason we have immigration controls.

Indeed we do, I'm not sure that anybody has suggested getting rid of them so don't really get the point you're trying to make?

We already have a skilled worker visa scheme to allow people to come to the UK to work in specific occupations for which there is a shortage of workers. If you want to address the problem of specific shortages, expanding that scheme would probably be a better targeted approach.

It is possible to do two things at the same time (despite the current government's apparent inability to do one thing at a time!). We could both be encouraging formal inward migration and sorting out the refugee/asylum system so that claims were processed quickly, so that those people who have valid claims can become productive members of society, rather than being stuck in detention centres indefinitely or shipped off to Rwanda.

 

[ainsworth74]

and sorting out the refugee/asylum system so that claims were processed quickly, so that those people who have valid claims can become productive members of society, rather than being stuck in detention centres indefinitely or shipped off to Rwanda.

Quite. I want someone seeking asylum to get have their claim processed rapidly, as in within a few weeks (obviously a few cases will take longer), and if they're approved have them eligible to seek work and become self-sufficient ASAP. If they're unsuccessful with their application to have their appeal heard quickly (again within a few weeks) and then either deported ASAP once they lose their appeal or, again, integrated into society ASAP.

I don't see how that could be controversial? Who wants these people hanging around in detention centres for months or years? Or having to ship them off to Rwanda? The costs alone of that are enormous quite apart from the humanitarian issues (both of Rwanda and also keeping them in detention centres/hotels).

But I'm yet to see any attempt by the Home Office or Government to get to grips with the real problem. The huge backlog of cases and the massive amount of time it takes them to process those cases. Indeed they seem to be far keener doing the flashy and headline grabbing non-sense we've seen in recent months and rather less interested in doing the harder but more effective thing of getting a grip on the backlog of cases.

 

[AM9]

But I'm yet to see any attempt by the Home Office or Government to get to grips with the real problem. The huge backlog of cases and the massive amount of time it takes them to process those cases. Indeed they seem to be far keener doing the flashy and headline grabbing non-sense we've seen in recent months and rather less interested in doing the harder but more effective thing of getting a grip on the backlog of cases.

"Home Office". Now is that the same Home Office that had a problem with the 'Wndrush Generation'. They dealt with it in their special way, i.e. do nothing (or very little). If ever there was institutional racism in an official body, the H.M.H.O. might well be at the front of the queue.

 

[jon0844]

Quite. I want someone seeking asylum to get have their claim processed rapidly, as in within a few weeks (obviously a few cases will take longer), and if they're approved have them eligible to seek work and become self-sufficient ASAP. If they're unsuccessful with their application to have their appeal heard quickly (again within a few weeks) and then either deported ASAP once they lose their appeal or, again, integrated into society ASAP.

I don't see how that could be controversial? Who wants these people hanging around in detention centres for months or years? Or having to ship them off to Rwanda? The costs alone of that are enormous quite apart from the humanitarian issues (both of Rwanda and also keeping them in detention centres/hotels).

But I'm yet to see any attempt by the Home Office or Government to get to grips with the real problem. The huge backlog of cases and the massive amount of time it takes them to process those cases. Indeed they seem to be far keener doing the flashy and headline grabbing non-sense we've seen in recent months and rather less interested in doing the harder but more effective thing of getting a grip on the backlog of cases.

I don't understand the whole Rwanda thing anyway. People argue it's what we should be doing, but for every person we send there, Rwanda can send someone here. How does that change anything?

The whole agreement seems decidedly suspect. Someone is making money though...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't understand the whole Rwanda thing anyway. People argue it's what we should be doing, but for every person we send there, Rwanda can send someone here. How does that change anything?

The point is that, if the scheme can be made to work (and I get that there are still practical difficulties about that and I guess questions about how expensive the scheme is), it would take away a lot of the incentive for people to get themselves smuggled from France into the UK, and will therefore go some way to solving the problem of boats crossing the Channel. In particular, if you are an economic migrant pretending to be an asylum seeker in order to get into the UK, then you are rapidly going to lose interest if you learn that, even if you are successful, your destination will be Rwanda! It's arguably a bit more complicated if you are a genuine asylum seeker, but it's possible that you'll more seriously consider doing the right thing and applying for asylum in the safe country you've already reached (France) rather than risking your life on a trip that would effectively be from France to Rwanda. If Rwanda sends other people here in return, that's fine because it doesn't change that you've removed much of the incentive for people to pay traffickers to put them in dangerous boats to cross the Channel.

 

[Annetts key]

It is possible to do two things at the same time (despite the current government's apparent inability to do one thing at a time!). We could both be encouraging formal inward migration and sorting out the refugee/asylum system so that claims were processed quickly, so that those people who have valid claims can become productive members of society, rather than being stuck in detention centres indefinitely or shipped off to Rwanda.

Quite. I want someone seeking asylum to get have their claim processed rapidly, as in within a few weeks (obviously a few cases will take longer), and if they're approved have them eligible to seek work and become self-sufficient ASAP. If they're unsuccessful with their application to have their appeal heard quickly (again within a few weeks) and then either deported ASAP once they lose their appeal or, again, integrated into society ASAP.

I don't see how that could be controversial? Who wants these people hanging around in detention centres for months or years? Or having to ship them off to Rwanda? The costs alone of that are enormous quite apart from the humanitarian issues (both of Rwanda and also keeping them in detention centres/hotels).

But I'm yet to see any attempt by the Home Office or Government to get to grips with the real problem. The huge backlog of cases and the massive amount of time it takes them to process those cases. Indeed they seem to be far keener doing the flashy and headline grabbing non-sense we've seen in recent months and rather less interested in doing the harder but more effective thing of getting a grip on the backlog of cases.

I absolutely agree with both of these replies.

If you were trying to use a service from a company and the delay was huge due to that company not putting sufficient resources into the system, you would go elsewhere and the company would eventually get such a bad reputation that it’s likely it would cease trading.

Yet, that is exactly what the conservative government does. It reduces funding and resources for the service, a backlog develops (and it’s not just in this area, you can see it with other government funded services like the NHS) and then they blame everyone and everything rather than admitting that it’s their fault.

And remember, the cost of providing all the food and accommodation is being funded by our tax money. I would rather the tax money be spent on correctly processing applications as the others have described above.

If I had my way, I would require Suella Braverman (or any other Secretary of State for the Home Department in a conservative government) working 12 hours a day, six days a week, to assist the staff in the hotels or in the other accommodation that this government has put applicants in. Until the backlog has been cut to a waiting time of less than 30 days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2023 ==

The point is that, if the scheme can be made to work (and I get that there are still practical difficulties about that and I guess questions about how expensive the scheme is),

It’s a ridiculous scheme, so why would any sane person try to make it work?

it would take away a lot of the incentive for people to get themselves smuggled from France into the UK, and will therefore go some way to solving the problem of boats crossing the Channel.

No, it will have very little disincentive and hence will not make any practical difference. It would be easier to just burn money in a big fire.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, it will have very little disincentive and hence will not make any practical difference. It would be easier to just burn money in a big fire.

The difference between our posts is that I provided reasoning to show why the scheme would act as a disincentive. You've just made assertions without providing any reasoning.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2023 ==

Indeed we do, I'm not sure that anybody has suggested getting rid of them so don't really get the point you're trying to make?

But people are seriously suggesting we should make it easier - in particular for people currently illegally camped in France - to get into the UK. And the impression I have is that no-one seems to be able to make the connection that, if you make it easier for people to come to the UK by claiming asylum, then (even) more people will do so, and then in a year or so's time, we'll have an even bigger problem in terms of trying to process all the claims and integrate people into society etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2023 ==

Quite. I want someone seeking asylum to get have their claim processed rapidly, as in within a few weeks (obviously a few cases will take longer), and if they're approved have them eligible to seek work and become self-sufficient ASAP. If they're unsuccessful with their application to have their appeal heard quickly (again within a few weeks) and then either deported ASAP once they lose their appeal or, again, integrated into society ASAP.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But the problem is, you can't just overnight magic up thousands of trained staff who are fully familiar with all the regulations around asylum and experienced in how to deal with claims fairly. The visa service was already under stress because of Covid, as well as the sudden need to process claims under the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, and now we have massively greater numbers crossing the Channel than ever before and it's rather obvious that if you (quite reasonably) have a level of staffing that is designed to deal with the typical levels of claims that we've had over the last few years, and you want to process each claim fairly, then having the massive sudden increase in people crossing the channel that we've seen over the last year is inevitably going to cause a huge backlog.

 

[Annetts key]

The difference between our posts is that I provided reasoning to show why the scheme would act as a disincentive. You've just made assertions without providing any reasoning.

I would have talked about the various interviews that a U.K. news programme had with “migrants” where the interviewer specifically asked if being removed and taken to Rwanda would put them off. Most said it would not. But I don’t remember which news programme it was, and hence can’t provide a link or reference. It may have been Channel 4 News. Feel free to go back through their YouTube videos if you have the time.

But people are seriously suggesting we should make it easier - in particular for people currently illegally camped in France - to get into the UK. And the impression I have is that no-one seems to be able to make the connection that, if you make it easier for people to come to the UK by claiming asylum, then (even) more people will do so, and then in a year or so's time, we'll have an even bigger problem in terms of trying to process all the claims and integrate people into society etc.

You are assuming that under the current system, people are currently being put off. Unfortunately it’s not realistically possible to know one way or another. Now if we operated a far more efficient and effective system, we would have a far better understanding of the “demand”. As it is, we are just encouraging people to use small boats.

 

[REVUpminster]

"Home Office". Now is that the same Home Office that had a problem with the 'Wndrush Generation'. They dealt with it in their special way, i.e. do nothing (or very little). If ever there was institutional racism in an official body, the H.M.H.O. might well be at the front of the queue.

The Home Office like most of the civil service were remainers who lost there frequent jollies into Europe and another tier of government they could promote themselves to. They have no reason to support a Tory government and if they can think up anything to bring it into disrepute they will. Maybe Sir Kier Starmer, one of their own, will fare better.
The Windrush generation was 500,000 people. Britain exported over a million £10 poms to Australia and New Zealand as our price for their help during the second world war.
What would have happened if they had stayed to rebuild Britain after the second world war. Most were skilled workers.

 

[AM9]

The Home Office like most of the civil service were remainers who lost there frequent jollies into Europe and another tier of government they could promote themselves to. They have no reason to support a Tory government and if they can think up anything to bring it into disrepute they will.

They didn't need to think anything up, - just do as the likes od Patel and Braverman say, - who rightly are responsible for Home Office actions during their tenure.

 

[REVUpminster]

They didn't need to think anything up, - just do as the likes od Patel and Braverman say, - who rightly are responsible for Home Office actions during their tenure.

And if they're given dodgy advice by those civil servants, who's head rolls? Never believe the civil service don't have their own agenda. May be Sir Kier Starmer, one of their own, will be luckier.

 

[ainsworth74]

But the problem is, you can't just overnight magic up thousands of trained staff who are fully familiar with all the regulations around asylum and experienced in how to deal with claims fairly.

Sure, I absolutely cannot argue with that. But, it doesn't seem like there is even an acknowledgement that there is an issue with the processing side that needs fixing. The Government pronouncements are all about how many people are coming here but far less about the woeful state of Home Office decision making. We probably would have a backlog come what may with the increased numbers in recent years but it would be nice to see the Government at least admit that it was a serious problem requiring serious attention rather than focusing on red meat for the Daily Mail and a good headline.

The Home Office like most of the civil service were remainers who lost there frequent jollies into Europe and another tier of government they could promote themselves to. They have no reason to support a Tory government and if they can think up anything to bring it into disrepute they will.

It's fascinating to watch a "stabbed in the back" myth spring up about Brexit in real time.

 

[najaB]

but it's possible that you'll more seriously consider doing the right thing and applying for asylum in the safe country you've already reached (France) rather than risking your life on a trip that would effectively be from France to Rwanda.

For the umpteenth time, there is zero obligation to seek asylum in any specific country, just because people in another country determine it to be safe.

But people are seriously suggesting we should make it easier - in particular for people currently illegally camped in France - to get into the UK.

No. We are suggesting that we make it easier for people to get their claims processed in a timely manner. If nothing else, it would mean that they wouldn't be camped out in France in the first place.

 

[XAM2175]

The Windrush generation was 500,000 people. Britain exported over a million £10 poms to Australia and New Zealand as our price for their help during the second world war.
What would have happened if they had stayed to rebuild Britain after the second world war. Most were skilled workers.

I can't speak for New Zealand, but Australia also actively solicited and accepted a large number of economic migrants from numerous other European nations in the aftermath of the war - primarily Italians and Greeks, but also Germans, French, Dutch, and others still.

Not entirely sure about the whole "price for help" thing, though. More like Australia needed fresh labour and, thanks to a bunch of fairly obvious push and pull factors, there were a lot of willing takers.

I'm also not sure of the relevance of the Windrush Generation in your post. @AM9 appears to have been referencing the appalling treatment meted out to its members by the Home Office in more recent times, rather than to their original arrival.

It's fascinating to watch a "stabbed in the back" myth spring up about Brexit in real time.

Truly.

 

[DoubleLemon]

I see Westminster Conservative brexit hardliners are praising the fantastic position Northern Ireland is in where it benefits from both the uk single market while also benefiting from being in the eu single market.

Now why couldn't the whole of the uk have this benefit. Wait... It did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2023 ==

Remind me again why, if someone is already in a safe country (France) and is knowingly declining the chance to claim asylum in that country, we should set up an office to let them apply for asylum in the UK instead?

If the asylum seekers were in the uk (doesn't matter how they arrived here they are not claiming asylum in the uk) waiting at dover wanting to get to France would you stop them from going as they were in a safe country?

I suspect I know the answer.

 

[REVUpminster]

I can't speak for New Zealand, but Australia also actively solicited and accepted a large number of economic migrants from numerous other European nations in the aftermath of the war - primarily Italians and Greeks, but also Germans, French, Dutch, and others still.

Not entirely sure about the whole "price for help" thing, though. More like Australia needed fresh labour and, thanks to a bunch of fairly obvious push and pull factors, there were a lot of willing takers.

I'm also not sure of the relevance of the Windrush Generation in your post. @AM9 appears to have been referencing the appalling treatment meted out to its members by the Home Office in more recent times, rather than to their original arrival.


Truly.

The Windrush generation replaced the £10 poms as a sizeable proportion, over a million, of working age people had gone. Irish citizens were classed as British to qualify. Britain's population was falling until EU expansion from 12. No one's explained how you can physically build enough housing for the influx if the asylum seekers and illegals were fast tracked. There are no jobs near disused airfields and army camps so they would probably descend on London and where is London going to house them all.

 

[najaB]

No one's explained how you can physically build enough housing for the influx if the asylum seekers and illegals were fast tracked.

How does speeding up processing of applications translate to increased demand for housing? Processing them faster wouldn't increase the percentage of successful applications. If anything, getting rid of the backlog would mean that we could remove those people who are unsuccessful, rather than having to house them in detention centres.

There are no jobs near disused airfields and army camps so they would probably descend on London and where is London going to house them all.

Well, that sounds like a perfect use case for 'levelling up' to me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Now why couldn't the whole of the uk have this benefit. Wait... It did.

Because the only way the entire UK could have that benefit was by signing up to other things like Freedom of Movement that many people didn't want and considered too high a price to pay for the benefits of EU trade.

If the asylum seekers were in the uk (doesn't matter how they arrived here they are not claiming asylum in the uk) waiting at dover wanting to get to France would you stop them from going as they were in a safe country?

I suspect I know the answer.

You'll find my answer to roughly that question upthread in post #6032. Is it the answer you were were expecting?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2023 ==

For the umpteenth time, there is zero obligation to seek asylum in any specific country, just because people in another country determine it to be safe.

I believe we already established upthread that in legal terms that is a bit of a grey area, since the UN convention on refugees does implicitly permit countries to impose penalties on refugees who have not arrived directly from the country they are fleeing from, although it's totally vague about what penalties. I suspect that, most likely, the authors of that conventions never imagined the kind of situation we currently see with small boats and so never thought through what the legal situation should be for that.

In moral/ethical terms, I simply disagree with you. If you are expecting other country(ies) to help you and house/feed you etc., then to my mind, you shouldn't be roaming the World trying to pick and choose your ideal country. Ethical/moral values are always going to be something of a judgement call and you're not going to convince me if try to do it by repeatedly stating your beliefs about the ethics of asylum seekers trying to pick and choose their country, as if those ethics were some kind of established fact.

 

[najaB]

In moral/ethical terms, I simply disagree with you. If you are expecting other country(ies) to help you and house/feed you etc., then to my mind, you shouldn't be roaming the World trying to pick and choose your ideal country.

Why should I not be able to pick and choose where I want to apply to stay?

 

[SargeNpton]

Why should I not be able to pick and choose where I want to apply to stay?

Well, if you are desperate to leave your home country because of a fear of your personal safety it would seem logical that you would be relieved to arrive in the first country where there is no threat to your personal safety.

Up to that point you are a refugee. It you then decide that you would prefer to travel from there to another country, simply because that second country offers a better standard of living, that then makes you an economic migrant.

 

[ainsworth74]

It you then decide that you would prefer to travel from there to another country, simply because that second country offers a better standard of living, that then makes you an economic migrant.

And for those that continue on because they may have relatives (perhaps somewhat distant but relatives none the less)? Or because they have a few words of the language of that other country? Or because they feel that they're closer culturally? Or feel that they have some historical tie due to a shared history of the two countries? Or because they don't actually feel safe even being in a neighbouring country to where they've fled from?

 

[najaB]

Well, if you are desperate to leave your home country because of a fear of your personal safety it would seem logical that you would be relieved to arrive in the first country where there is no threat to your personal safety.

True. But what I don't actually want to be in that country - for example, they speak a different language to me? Why shouldn't I be able to make the choice to either stay there, or go somewhere else where they do speak the same language as me? Or where I already have family connections? Or anything else?

After all, I would me making that choice in the full knowledge that I might not be allowed to stay in that country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why should I not be able to pick and choose where I want to apply to stay?

Because it's not like a free choice transaction where both sides are choosing to make an exchange for mutual benefit. When you are applying for asylum, in practical terms, what you are doing is claiming that you are a refugee, and therefore the country you are applying to is obliged to help you, without you giving anything in return. The only choice the country has in the matter is that it can assess your claim to try to determine to the best of its ability whether you are actually a genuine asylum seeker with a valid claim. If it determines that you are then, barring certain exceptional circumstances, it will be obliged to house you etc. And even before your claim is assessed, that country will need to support you. Bluntly, you're asking for (and to some extent, insisting on) charity. That's all well and good bearing in mind that asylum seekers are, on the whole, victims through no fault of their own, and they do seriously need that help. But, as I said upthread, if you are expecting that kind of help, then it's not really appropriate to start trying to pick and choose who you want to help you.

 

[najaB]

Because it's not like a free choice transaction where both sides are choosing to make an exchange for mutual benefit. When you are applying for asylum, in practical terms, what you are doing is claiming that you are a refugee, and therefore the country you are applying to is obliged to help you, without you giving anything in return. The only choice the country has in the matter is that it can assess your claim to try to determine to the best of its ability whether you are actually a genuine asylum seeker with a valid claim. If it determines that you are then, barring certain exceptional circumstances, it will be obliged to house you etc.

And the person making the claim has to weigh up those factors before making any claim.

And even before your claim is assessed, that country will need to support you.

All the more reason to fix our immigration system, rather than spending money to send people to Rwanda because we can't process the claims fast enough.

But, as I said upthread, if you are expecting that kind of help, then it's not really appropriate to start trying to pick and choose who you want to help you.

Why not?

 

[Annetts key]

… offers a better standard of living, that then makes you an economic migrant.

So everyone who moves anywhere, by any distance, or who moves job is an economic migrant then? Including people who travel on holiday.

You are effectively saying that migrating birds and animals have more freedom than human beings.

Isn’t the whole point of a capitalist system, that people try to better themselves by moving to earn more money, get a nicer home, improve their lives?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why not?

Refer to post #6034

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==

And for those that continue on because they may have relatives (perhaps somewhat distant but relatives none the less)? Or because they have a few words of the language of that other country? Or because they feel that they're closer culturally? Or feel that they have some historical tie due to a shared history of the two countries? Or because they don't actually feel safe even being in a neighbouring country to where they've fled from?

I think it's very understandable if someone prefers to be in a country where they have relatives or closer cultural ties, etc.

BUT... If I as a non-asylum-seeker UK citizen have relatives in Outer-Faraway-Land, that doesn't by itself give me the right to just wander into Outer-Faraway-Land and claim residency rights there: I still have to through the visa process and convince the Outer-Faraway-Land Government that I am the kind of person they'd like to have as a resident and satisfy whatever visa conditions they have chosen to require of would-be residents (though you'd hope their visa rules would take account of family connections). If you are arguing that asylum seekers should have the right to just go to any country of their choice where they have relatives and claim asylum there, then you are saying that they should have additional rights that no-one else has, and which are clearly not necessary in order to give them asylum/safety. I think that would require some justification.

 

[najaB]

BUT... If I as a non-asylum-seeker UK citizen have relatives in Outer-Faraway-Land, that doesn't by itself give me the right to just wander into Outer-Faraway-Land and claim residency rights there

The only difference between what you describe and the asylum process is that a visa application is (normally) made while outside the country.

Asylum claims can be and are rejected and the subjects required to leave the country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only difference between what you describe and the asylum process is that a visa application is (normally) made while outside the country.

That is not at all the only difference. In a normal visa application, you generally pay for the visa application and you do not ask for or get any support from the host country while you are applying (or in most cases, after you apply). You are expected to satisfy whatever visa rules and conditions the country has put in place and, subject to the rules the country has adopted, it is entirely their choice whether they give you the visa. It's much more akin to a trade between the individual and the country.

On the other hand...

Asylum claims can be and are rejected and the subjects required to leave the country.

But they can generally only be rejected on the grounds that the person is found not to be a genuine asylum seeker. If the person convinces the host country that they are a genuine asylum seeker, then the country is basically obliged to grant them asylum. That's why we talk about people claiming asylum, but it would be absurd to refer to applying for a normal visa as claiming a visa!

(Btw.... not really relevant to the points we are debating, but as a pedantic point: it's actually very common for visa applications to the UK to be made from within the UK: That'll be the case whenever a person was previously granted residency for a fixed period and then needs to apply for another visa at the end of that period - which I believe is the case for basically all non-asylum residency routes)

 

[class ep-09]

Aghata Christie would be disappointed:

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/...der-london-folkestone-leg-route-border-delays