Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Why not send them back to their last country of departure?
Who should have dealt with the problem and not just passed it on.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

They've got to Britain - Britain's problem I suppose.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

The UK opted out of the Dublin convention (EU directive 604/2013) as part of leaving the EU.

Another Brexit success.

Funny how their first response is to fly kites in the press about outsourcing the problem to a crown dependency or an overseas territory, all of which either didn't get a vote in leaving the EU or had their referendum vote ignored.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Gibraltar had a vote

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

which was 98% in favour of staying in the EU.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Commonly touted as 96% but actually nearer 60%

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

In the same way that the UK vote was commonly touted as 52% for leaving but was actually nearer 27%.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Why not just dump them to Australia like in the good ol' days?

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Gibraltar could yet face no-deal Brexit, chief minister warns

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

Gibraltar could yet face no-deal Brexit, chief minister warns

Quote:
Fabian Picardo says treaty allowing Gibraltar to join Schengen ‘should not be given for granted.’

Fabian Picardo issued the warning during a House of Lords EU committee hearing Tuesday, where he cautioned that the agreement could fall apart in coming months.

The deal allows for Gibraltar, which was ceded to Britain in 1713 during the War of Spanish Succession, to join Schengen under the auspices of Spain.

That means Gibraltar’s international border will move to its airport and seaport, paving the way for the demolition of the 1.2-kilometer physical barrier that separates the territory from Spain. Management of that crossing has long poisoned relations with Madrid.

The problem with this is that Gibraltar would still not be a full independent member of Schengen but have full uninterrupted access to Spain and therefore all the Schengen area.
So anyone entering Gib via the port or airport would also have the same access to the Schengen area.
Not actually being in Schengen would disqualify Gib personnel from manning the immigration in these two areas on behalf of Schengen
It has been suggested that a company called Frontex could be employed by Schengen to undertake these duties.
However Frontex employs people from the local area ( in this case not Gib ) which means you could have Spaniards employed on Gibraltar soil to control immigration into Gib.
This is a BIG NO NO to both the Gibraltar government and the people of Gibraltar backed up by 300+ years of experience.

Hence impasse

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

See Fred, the post you responded to covered that.

By 'company', I presume you mean Frontex, the EU's European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

You're either being disingenuous in referring to it as a company, and inferring that it's a private organisation, or you are misinformed.

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

An Agency is a particular kind of company, which serves as an intermediary between clients

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

In this context, it refers to an organisation, not a company. Compare the difference in meanings.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...e0e526b3be.png
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...a2af617262.png

Who does the audience agree with?

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

OK folks that is enough arguing about the meaning of the words used. Please return to the what was being discussed before you started with this diversion.

Rosemary

Re: Gibraltar 2
 

It's not a diversion, either Fred deliberately misrepresented Frontex as a company intentionally, or he did it because he didn't know any different.

But okay, if you're happy for him to lie, I'll go along with it.