Motoring0 min ago
Channel Tunnel Calais Crisis
65 Answers
http://
incursion of 2000 monday.
incursion of 1000 and one death last night.
tonight?
tomorrow night?
next week?
on the basis that water can't be shovelled with a pitchfork, what's the betting that Cameron's "government will do everything it can to combat the crisis" pledge will mean dismantling the border? it will after all make all the current issues go away overnight.
incursion of 2000 monday.
incursion of 1000 and one death last night.
tonight?
tomorrow night?
next week?
on the basis that water can't be shovelled with a pitchfork, what's the betting that Cameron's "government will do everything it can to combat the crisis" pledge will mean dismantling the border? it will after all make all the current issues go away overnight.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The difficulty that the Prime Minister has in refusing to provide more funds to tackle the problems in Calais is that, by agreement with the French, the UK border is actually situated in Calais. UK Border Agency staff are situated there and “illegals” who are intercepted there do not have the opportunity to set foot on UK soil.
France is continually threatening to rescind that agreement. If the border was moved to Dover all those currently discovered hiding in lorries who are ejected before crossing the Channel would actually make it to the UK (as the French, as we know, are none too keen to be over-zealous). Of course the remedy for this would be for the UK to return the miscreants directly to France, as is allowed under the rules. But the EU has deliberately blurred the lines between what should happen under UN conventions and what does happen under EU protocol. The end result, as we have seen of those who do make it, is they are allowed to remain here.
The root cause of this reverts to the freedom of movement. Once they have gained a foothold in mainland Europe the migrants are free to roam wherever they wish across the Schengen nations (and would be free to travel to the UK had we become a signatory). If they had to be contained in, say, Italy, the mayor of Lampedusa may not be so keen to announce how proud he is that his island was the “destination of choice” (yeh, right!) for those travelling from North Africa. If they had to remain within Italy he may find his pride is somewhat tempered by a population that would quickly become cheesed off with having to deal with the numbers involved.
France is continually threatening to rescind that agreement. If the border was moved to Dover all those currently discovered hiding in lorries who are ejected before crossing the Channel would actually make it to the UK (as the French, as we know, are none too keen to be over-zealous). Of course the remedy for this would be for the UK to return the miscreants directly to France, as is allowed under the rules. But the EU has deliberately blurred the lines between what should happen under UN conventions and what does happen under EU protocol. The end result, as we have seen of those who do make it, is they are allowed to remain here.
The root cause of this reverts to the freedom of movement. Once they have gained a foothold in mainland Europe the migrants are free to roam wherever they wish across the Schengen nations (and would be free to travel to the UK had we become a signatory). If they had to be contained in, say, Italy, the mayor of Lampedusa may not be so keen to announce how proud he is that his island was the “destination of choice” (yeh, right!) for those travelling from North Africa. If they had to remain within Italy he may find his pride is somewhat tempered by a population that would quickly become cheesed off with having to deal with the numbers involved.
It seems, Aog, that you missed the following part of my earlier answer, "I think the UK should take some responsibility for the migrants, given that we are part of the EU and, if a union means anything, it should involve sharing."
I should have thought that would have indicated that I'm not part of any anti-EU campaign. I think you'll find in 2017, if Cameron lives up to his 'copper-bottomed' promises this time, the majority of the British electorate will be on my side, not yours.
The only sharing I was against was sharing in the cost of maintaining French laws within France, simply because the authorities there seem incapable of doing so themselves.
I should have thought that would have indicated that I'm not part of any anti-EU campaign. I think you'll find in 2017, if Cameron lives up to his 'copper-bottomed' promises this time, the majority of the British electorate will be on my side, not yours.
The only sharing I was against was sharing in the cost of maintaining French laws within France, simply because the authorities there seem incapable of doing so themselves.
I'm not quite clear, QM. Are you suggesting that because of our EU membership the UK should take a share of the migrants arriving in southern Italy, eastern Greece and elsewhere in Europe? If so, this flies in the face of the UN convention on the treatment of refugees which states that refugees should present themselves to the authorities as soon as possible in the first safe country they arrive.
QM, we know where back is, France. As I've said a thousand times send the back to France, don't even talk to them, round hem up put hem back on a ship or train end of. Why can't we do that? why?Then let the French deal with it. We don't care where hey oiginate from only that the last known safe country was France. QED, the only useful law in the EU, the one we don't utilise.
The French are sending more police.
http://
http://
We have to be careful not to fall out with France over this- we need to work with them. As I understand it the French have agreed to have controls at Calais but could, if pushed, withdraw from the arrangement and leave us to deal with the migrants at Dover or at some agreed point part way along the tunnel . That would cause even more disruption to genuine travellers and would probably lead to running battles at our end. And once they are here I'm not sure what we could do about it
Judging by one who was interviewed for the 'Reporters' strand (BBC news channel), last night, their countries of origin aren't so dangerous or terrible that they don't leave their wife and kids behind, to await their arrival in UK (or wherever).
They've sold their house back home to scrape together $3000 to get this far, leaving their family, back home, penniless. Selfish s**ts.
Repeat: not so much danger in home country that family can't be left behind for 6 months or so.
Not being persecuted by their government or local hoodlums.
No case for asylum.
Saudi Arabia is pretty close to Somalia. Prosperous, developing rapidly, in need of cheap labour, hot and sunny. Would seem to be ideal destination for a few shiploads.
They've sold their house back home to scrape together $3000 to get this far, leaving their family, back home, penniless. Selfish s**ts.
Repeat: not so much danger in home country that family can't be left behind for 6 months or so.
Not being persecuted by their government or local hoodlums.
No case for asylum.
Saudi Arabia is pretty close to Somalia. Prosperous, developing rapidly, in need of cheap labour, hot and sunny. Would seem to be ideal destination for a few shiploads.
Surely, NJ, the migrants DO present themselves to the authorities - willy-nilly - in Italy and Greece as they troop off the boats which brought them there. The problem lies in what these 'authorities' do with them thereafter. It seems as if they just say, "Welcome to Europe and off you go!"
Greece is already on its uppers and so it is perfectly plain that it could not sustain a flood of immigrants whereas Germany, France and Britain, for example, are in a rather better position to help at least. Consequently, I think we should do so.
I believe our esteemed Prime Minister recently claimed we are still "a Christian country", so we need him to apply one of that religion's key tenets and be "good Samaritans". We are simply NOT running out of space, food or any of life's necessities. (I'm not a Christian myself, by the way!)
Greece is already on its uppers and so it is perfectly plain that it could not sustain a flood of immigrants whereas Germany, France and Britain, for example, are in a rather better position to help at least. Consequently, I think we should do so.
I believe our esteemed Prime Minister recently claimed we are still "a Christian country", so we need him to apply one of that religion's key tenets and be "good Samaritans". We are simply NOT running out of space, food or any of life's necessities. (I'm not a Christian myself, by the way!)
Zebo; please read this;
http://
European countries cannot and will not simply hand out passports willy-nilly.
http://
European countries cannot and will not simply hand out passports willy-nilly.
