Macron and Calais
Discussion
IroningMan said:
No. You must have missed the post where it was pointed out that it's the travel companies' problem - they are responsible for ensuring that no-one embarks on a train, plane or ferry to the UK who doesn't have the right to do so and also responsible for taking them back to France if they bring them here wrongly. Simple as. End of.
Refugees will find a way and once landed, the UK has to process them by Law. End of. You'll see. don'tbesilly said:
Any particular reason for the apparent glee displayed in your post?
Anything exacerbated by Brexit will make me laugh. For me, Brexit is now a curiosity, like Trump, and an amusement. Oh, I do want to be proven wrong and for it to be a fabulous success but if it fails, I will laugh and laugh at what my fellow Britons willingly and deliberately did to themselves. The irony is so amazing...voted to keep immigrants out and then thousands of Syrians etc get in!
I doubt too that it will happen though so don't panic. The UK Government, unlike many posters here, understands the risks and will keep coughing up ever increasing sums of cash to the French and play nice.
Harry Biscuit said:
don'tbesilly said:
Alternatively you could suggest that the tapestry was returning to where it was originally made, and therefore belongs in the UK anyway.
I think you ought to start a new thread. .The French have us over a barrel on the issue of controls at Calais, we will keep paying (as we have done for years) or the controls will go back to Dover.
Jockman said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Jockman said:
Don’t upset him Mutph. We may lose the tapestry!!!
I like that Macron is trolling us with the loan of the Bayeux tapestry & it's flying over so many heads in the most delightful way.How would you reciprocate, Eddie?
(Edited to add - for academic and cultural purposes of course)
Edited by Murph7355 on Thursday 18th January 08:32
IroningMan said:
No. You must have missed the post where it was pointed out that it's the travel companies' problem - they are responsible for ensuring that no-one embarks on a train, plane or ferry to the UK who doesn't have the right to do so and also responsible for taking them back to France if they bring them here wrongly. Simple as. End of.
What would that look like in practice? Does that mean double the checks - once in France by Eurotunnel / P&O Ferries etc, and then again in the UK by Border Force? Amateurish said:
IroningMan said:
No. You must have missed the post where it was pointed out that it's the travel companies' problem - they are responsible for ensuring that no-one embarks on a train, plane or ferry to the UK who doesn't have the right to do so and also responsible for taking them back to France if they bring them here wrongly. Simple as. End of.
What would that look like in practice? Does that mean double the checks - once in France by Eurotunnel / P&O Ferries etc, and then again in the UK by Border Force? IroningMan said:
andymadmak said:
Shay HTFC said:
At what point do the French say 'sod it, we can't be bothered to pay to look after refugees who want to go to England', and then tell UK government to get off of French soil, move the border checks back to Dover and let any Tom, Dick or Harry pay to take the ferry and be dealt with in Dover?
I believe that the law requires the company providing the travel ability (ie, the ferry company, train company, airline etc) is required to ensure that those embarking on their journey are entitled to do so, otherwise it's the travel providers responsibility to repatriate them from whence they came - in this case France. So if the French were to allow any Tom Dick or Harry to take the ferry to the UK, then the ferry company would be responsible for taking them back to France - or alternatively they would probably do what, for example most airlines do when you check in and again before you board your plane - that is, check your passport themselves and satisfy themselves that you have a passport and valid visa.
It does make me wonder what planet some people live on, at the end of the day it's the UK that is trying to stop clandestine entry into the UK, France has and has never had much of an interest in keeping clandestines from crossing the channel, so there's no use bleating on about how these people are in there country and they should do something about it. The French do not care and there is sweet FA the UK can do about it now.
The money and resources the French are putting into the Northern ports area is to appease the local government and voters in the area and try and lessen the impact that the migrants have there. The thinking in Paris has always been that the Channel Tunnel act and the Le Touquet agreements are seen as more of a deterrent to migrants than having Border Force in Dover, that's why they (the French government) are happy to have us there, this thinking isn't echoed by the local government in the Calais area (especially Natacha Bouchart) who can only see the damage that has done (Although years of communist councils and the lack of proper planning in the Calais area have done much worse things than the migrants have).
It's a British problem, no if's or but's, that's why the UK government is spending so much money on security infrastructure as it's a lot cheaper than having to deal with migrants after they've made it to the UK.
If the French decide tomorrow that the border should go back to Dover we will be back to the days of 100's of migrants arriving daily, we struggled to deal with them before we became juxtaposed and there is absolutely no chance of being able to process them now after the massive cuts in money and staff that the Home Office has had to make.
With regards to the CLA (Carriers Liability Act) it actually only applies to Air and Sea travel and whilst charges against airlines are quite regularly levelled if they allow someone onto their aircraft that they reasonable should not have it didn't ever seem to happen to the ferry companies before juxtaposed controls, I assume this is because it would have bankrupt them in about a week.
The money and resources the French are putting into the Northern ports area is to appease the local government and voters in the area and try and lessen the impact that the migrants have there. The thinking in Paris has always been that the Channel Tunnel act and the Le Touquet agreements are seen as more of a deterrent to migrants than having Border Force in Dover, that's why they (the French government) are happy to have us there, this thinking isn't echoed by the local government in the Calais area (especially Natacha Bouchart) who can only see the damage that has done (Although years of communist councils and the lack of proper planning in the Calais area have done much worse things than the migrants have).
It's a British problem, no if's or but's, that's why the UK government is spending so much money on security infrastructure as it's a lot cheaper than having to deal with migrants after they've made it to the UK.
If the French decide tomorrow that the border should go back to Dover we will be back to the days of 100's of migrants arriving daily, we struggled to deal with them before we became juxtaposed and there is absolutely no chance of being able to process them now after the massive cuts in money and staff that the Home Office has had to make.
With regards to the CLA (Carriers Liability Act) it actually only applies to Air and Sea travel and whilst charges against airlines are quite regularly levelled if they allow someone onto their aircraft that they reasonable should not have it didn't ever seem to happen to the ferry companies before juxtaposed controls, I assume this is because it would have bankrupt them in about a week.
Jockman said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Jockman said:
Don’t upset him Mutph. We may lose the tapestry!!!
I like that Macron is trolling us with the loan of the Bayeux tapestry & it's flying over so many heads in the most delightful way.How would you reciprocate, Eddie?
As noted by Craigy above me, we live in the real world & the potty isolationists who like to angrily mash their keyboards to produce words to the effect of stick it up them, send in the army, pull up the draw bridges etc. are just that, potty isolationists. France behaves as it does & we can rail against that as much as we like. In the end, we work with them as we have done for decades & find a solution that more or less works for either party & the one thing you absolutely do not want is the border repatriated. There be dragons.
Amateurish said:
The French should just build a wall! After all, they already tried once with the Maginot Line.
And look how well that worked............Lets face it the French have a long history of letting anyone walk across their borders and expect everyone else to sort it out afterwards......
Coolbanana said:
IroningMan said:
No. You must have missed the post where it was pointed out that it's the travel companies' problem - they are responsible for ensuring that no-one embarks on a train, plane or ferry to the UK who doesn't have the right to do so and also responsible for taking them back to France if they bring them here wrongly. Simple as. End of.
Refugees will find a way and once landed, the UK has to process them by Law. End of. You'll see. They have a disappointing few years ahead
It's worth the money to keep that s
tstorm over there to be honest. Money well spent.
We would have charities rushing to help these poor people which would only attract more, escalating the problem ten fold. The French burn down their camps instead. A far cheaper option for us to just pay them to do it their way.
That probably makes me sound heartless, and I would genuinely help those who were fleeing war torn holes, but I find it very hard to belive that those sitting in calais are still fleeing from danger, otherwise they wouldn't have travelled through 7 or 8 different countries. These people just want to get into our lovely soft warm duvet of a country, and whilst I don't blame them, it's not our problem.
tstorm over there to be honest. Money well spent.We would have charities rushing to help these poor people which would only attract more, escalating the problem ten fold. The French burn down their camps instead. A far cheaper option for us to just pay them to do it their way.
That probably makes me sound heartless, and I would genuinely help those who were fleeing war torn holes, but I find it very hard to belive that those sitting in calais are still fleeing from danger, otherwise they wouldn't have travelled through 7 or 8 different countries. These people just want to get into our lovely soft warm duvet of a country, and whilst I don't blame them, it's not our problem.
dazwalsh said:
It's worth the money to keep that ststorm over there to be honest. Money well spent.
We would have charities rushing to help these poor people which would only attract more, escalating the problem ten fold. The French burn down their camps instead. A far cheaper option for us to just pay them to do it their way.
That probably makes me sound heartless, and I would genuinely help those who were fleeing war torn holes, but I find it very hard to belive that those sitting in calais are still fleeing from danger, otherwise they wouldn't have travelled through 7 or 8 different countries. These people just want to get into our lovely soft warm duvet of a country, and whilst I don't blame them, it's not our problem.
The French have offered them accommodation.tstorm over there to be honest. Money well spent.We would have charities rushing to help these poor people which would only attract more, escalating the problem ten fold. The French burn down their camps instead. A far cheaper option for us to just pay them to do it their way.
That probably makes me sound heartless, and I would genuinely help those who were fleeing war torn holes, but I find it very hard to belive that those sitting in calais are still fleeing from danger, otherwise they wouldn't have travelled through 7 or 8 different countries. These people just want to get into our lovely soft warm duvet of a country, and whilst I don't blame them, it's not our problem.
It's a bit like a leaky tap in your bathroom, drip drip, the water seeps through the floor, out of the ceiling and onto your head as your sitting watching TV, the solution is to fix the tap not put up an umbrella. The only people who are "legally" stowing away on lorries and attempting to escape France should be French, anyone else has crossed into the EU and through the first port of call. The correct solution isn't even to strengthen the outer EU borders (the ceiling) it's to fix the leaky tap and stop the cause of the migrants which is mostly civil war and unrest, but that would mean not messing around and actually leading something and fixing problems.
Additional £44 million. Silly decision which will achieve close to nothing. Waste of taxpayer's money.
The ongoing problem is at the EU's external borders.
The fact that France continues to allow illegal residents to congregate at Calais and expecting them to get to Britain is further aiding to the mind-set that all the other useless EU members have - in that they are simply happy to ignore the asylum/immigration rules so that they can pass over the problem to their neighbours.
Great team spirit EU - not.
I don't see any benefit to any party involved when the EU continues have an open border stance. Continuing to invite the entire world (if they wish) to make the journey and try their luck.
The ongoing problem is at the EU's external borders.
The fact that France continues to allow illegal residents to congregate at Calais and expecting them to get to Britain is further aiding to the mind-set that all the other useless EU members have - in that they are simply happy to ignore the asylum/immigration rules so that they can pass over the problem to their neighbours.
Great team spirit EU - not.
I don't see any benefit to any party involved when the EU continues have an open border stance. Continuing to invite the entire world (if they wish) to make the journey and try their luck.
The current arrangements are to the benefit of all the EU and the UK as it speeds up trade transport compared to the old system, that is why it was implemented.
UK pays a significant sum for the infrastructure, there is a case for a payment from Ireland towards these costs as they use it significantly to aid their trade flows with the rest of the EU. I would expect the new road charging policy for trucks will include a payment that is used to cover any costs of the border infrastructure.
UK pays a significant sum for the infrastructure, there is a case for a payment from Ireland towards these costs as they use it significantly to aid their trade flows with the rest of the EU. I would expect the new road charging policy for trucks will include a payment that is used to cover any costs of the border infrastructure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff