News1 min ago
£20 Million Of Containers Calais
So it looks like its going to be a permanent town for Migrants trying to get into the UK.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. 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.
AOG if we ever leave the EU,the French will just offload all these people to the nearest point outside the EU which will be Dover . Then we will be forced to grant them asylum, as has just been proved by the case of the man who walked into England via the channel tunnel last week!
The only way leaving the EU will change the migrant situation is the ending of automatic right of residence for all EU citizens. Even that will be very little different as even if we are out of the EU there will still be rights of entry ( If not residence) to other European citizens. Just as there was before we joined the EU.
The only way leaving the EU will change the migrant situation is the ending of automatic right of residence for all EU citizens. Even that will be very little different as even if we are out of the EU there will still be rights of entry ( If not residence) to other European citizens. Just as there was before we joined the EU.
“AOG if we ever leave the EU,the French will just offload all these people to the nearest point outside the EU which will be Dover . Then we will be forced to grant them asylum…”
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. We’ve done this before (just a few weeks ago). It is extremely unlikely that France will tear up the “Le Touquet” agreement (which permits UK immigration control to be carried out in France). I made this point in the earlier question and explained the reasons (which essentially are that, in more ways than one, France would lose more than they gained).
Furthermore, the French will not be able to “offload all these people to the nearest point outside the EU which will be Dover”. The United Nations convention on the treatment of refugees and the EU’s own Dublin Agreement are both quite clear: asylum claims must be lodged in the first safe country the applicant arrives in. For people in Calais this is not the UK (nor, in most cases, is it France, but that’s their problem). Neither of these agreements is dependent on our EU membership. The Le Touquet Agreement is simply a bilateral agreement entered in to by the UK and France as two independent sovereign nations. It has nothing to do with the EU.
There is no question of us being forced to accept their asylum claims because, under both the agreements I mentioned refugees lose the right to claim asylum if they do not present themselves to the authorities in the first safe haven they encounter. They then simply revert to being illegal immigrants and can be returned to the place they last left. I don’t know why the UK does not already enforce this arrangement with people arriving from Calais.
There is much misinformation bandied about in relation to this matter and no doubt the argument you put forward (that illegal migrants in Calais will be dumped in Dover) will be among the central planks of the “Stay In” campaign. In fact, the cause of the problems in the French Channel ports are entirely of the French’s own making. They entered into the Schengen Agreement which enabled these people to roam freely across Europe and effectively moved the French eastern border to Ukraine, Russia and (in particular) Turkey. It is preposterous to suppose that only our continued membership of the EU will control this issue when in fact it is the EU that is largely responsible for it in the first place by recklessly abandoning its internal borders.
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. We’ve done this before (just a few weeks ago). It is extremely unlikely that France will tear up the “Le Touquet” agreement (which permits UK immigration control to be carried out in France). I made this point in the earlier question and explained the reasons (which essentially are that, in more ways than one, France would lose more than they gained).
Furthermore, the French will not be able to “offload all these people to the nearest point outside the EU which will be Dover”. The United Nations convention on the treatment of refugees and the EU’s own Dublin Agreement are both quite clear: asylum claims must be lodged in the first safe country the applicant arrives in. For people in Calais this is not the UK (nor, in most cases, is it France, but that’s their problem). Neither of these agreements is dependent on our EU membership. The Le Touquet Agreement is simply a bilateral agreement entered in to by the UK and France as two independent sovereign nations. It has nothing to do with the EU.
There is no question of us being forced to accept their asylum claims because, under both the agreements I mentioned refugees lose the right to claim asylum if they do not present themselves to the authorities in the first safe haven they encounter. They then simply revert to being illegal immigrants and can be returned to the place they last left. I don’t know why the UK does not already enforce this arrangement with people arriving from Calais.
There is much misinformation bandied about in relation to this matter and no doubt the argument you put forward (that illegal migrants in Calais will be dumped in Dover) will be among the central planks of the “Stay In” campaign. In fact, the cause of the problems in the French Channel ports are entirely of the French’s own making. They entered into the Schengen Agreement which enabled these people to roam freely across Europe and effectively moved the French eastern border to Ukraine, Russia and (in particular) Turkey. It is preposterous to suppose that only our continued membership of the EU will control this issue when in fact it is the EU that is largely responsible for it in the first place by recklessly abandoning its internal borders.
NJ that is what you told me before, I was willing to believe it until we granted asylum to the man who walked to England through the channel tunnel. By your argument he should have been shipped straight back but NO he was allowed in and claimed asylum. If we leave the EU I an certain the same thing would happen but on a far larger scale. The French, no matter what the agreement was, would solve their problem by just shipping them over to England and dumping them here.
He was allowed asylum, Eddie, because the UK government is gutless and has no will to see the rules imposed. The odd few that are getting through now they are prepared to tolerate (on our behalf - nice of them).
Faced with the seven or eight thousand in Calais and Dunkirk (who will be replaced by ten thousand more next summer) all being allowed onto ships by the French authorities (should the Le Touquet agreement be ditched) the may be a little more robust in their approach.
Anyway, the chances of that treaty being abandoned are slim in the extreme. The Port of Calais has just announced an £800m expansion scheme. Should the position there become untenable for hauliers they will take their custom elsewhere. There are other routes to and from the UK that do not involve France and business has a way of adapting to changing conditions should they become unfavourable.
Faced with the seven or eight thousand in Calais and Dunkirk (who will be replaced by ten thousand more next summer) all being allowed onto ships by the French authorities (should the Le Touquet agreement be ditched) the may be a little more robust in their approach.
Anyway, the chances of that treaty being abandoned are slim in the extreme. The Port of Calais has just announced an £800m expansion scheme. Should the position there become untenable for hauliers they will take their custom elsewhere. There are other routes to and from the UK that do not involve France and business has a way of adapting to changing conditions should they become unfavourable.
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.