Quicken Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 1. Why would the French keep the border checks going if the UK is not in the EU? What is in it for them? 2. Are you seriously suggesting that the UK would effectively stop all imports and exports accross the Channel if the ferry operators didn't agree to the UK's demands? Returning people from whence they came is not so easy. Just ask the Greeks. 1. What's in it for them now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 1.The UK would be a non EU country. EU countries would no longer have any obligations towards a non EU country. 2. If the UK wanted to they could have tried to put the obligation on the ferry operators to do what UK border staff currently do in Calais. The vehicles would be in the UK not in Calais and the people in them become the UK's problem,not France's. Even with the current system of checks and fines on lorry operators, many still get through. With no controls in Calais the current numbers would become many more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 1. What's in it for them now? Fewer numbers of migrants in Calais. With no controls, the numbers arriving in Calais would be much higher as the chances of getting across would be much greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Maybe Cameron would have to take a leaf out of Iceland's book when they won the "cod wars" with the UK. Like in the recent "negotiations" (supplications more like) Cameron and his government just concede to the eu all the time. From Wikipedia While Iceland came closest to withdrawing from NATO and expelling US forces in the Second Cod War, Iceland actually took the most serious action in all of the Cod Wars in the Third Cod War when the Icelandic government ended diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 19 February 1976.[20] Despite the fact that the Icelandic government was firmly pro-Western, the government linked Iceland's NATO membership with the outcomes of the fishery dispute. If a favorable outcome could not be reached, it was implied that Iceland would withdraw from NATO. The government never explicitly linked the US Defence Agreement to the outcome of the dispute though The point being that negotiations don't always take the form of sumptuous jollies all round for all and sundry. Edited February 8, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Maybe Cameron would have to take a leaf out of Iceland's book when they won the "cod wars" with the UK. Like in the recent "negotiations" (supplications more like) Cameron and his government just concede to the eu all the time. From Wikipedia The point being that negotiations don't always take the form of sumptuous jollies all round for all and sundry. Try telling that to Farage and his cronies who think they can negotiate a post EU deal that keeps all of the benefits of the single market with none of the obligations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Try telling that to Farage and his cronies who think they can negotiate a post EU deal that keeps all of the benefits of the single market with none of the obligations. The UK continued to trade with Iceland and indeed during the conflict Iceland was still portrayed in the UK in a friendly fashion. That's not to say it would be exactly the same with the eu but conflict on one matter doesn't necessarily mean total emnity on all matters. Edited February 8, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Try telling that to Farage and his cronies who think they can negotiate a post EU deal that keeps all of the benefits of the single market with none of the obligations. Uk runs a 100 billion a year trade deficit with the EU. If the EU and UK impose tariffs, its going to hurt the EU a lot more than it hurts us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Try telling that to Farage and his cronies who think they can negotiate a post EU deal that keeps all of the benefits of the single market with none of the obligations. Farage is a devious man with a hidden agenda. And loves celebrity. Sounds like any/all policians? He does not give a toss about the UK, only himself. And surrounds himself with fools, xenophobes, bigots, and basically anybody who will make him look like the smartest man in the pub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Uk runs a 100 billion a year trade deficit with the EU. If the EU and UK impose tariffs, its going to hurt the EU a lot more than it hurts us. First rule of trade the customer is always right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Farage is a devious man with a hidden agenda. And loves celebrity. Sounds like any/all policians? He does not give a toss about the UK, only himself. And surrounds himself with fools, xenophobes, bigots, and basically anybody who will make him look like the smartest man in the pub. Because he wants a points based system just like Canada and the like when it comes to immigration But yes most if not all politicians have their own agenda ,just like most of the electorate do it`s human nature .......turkeys don't vote for christmas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 1. Obligations under the existing agreements. 2. International Law. France is a safe country. Ferry Operators have to exist and operate under the law. They already need to check ticketing details of everyone who boards what problem would it be to include a personal document check. If they allowed illegals on and they were turned round at Dover and the French wouldn't let them back off again then it is them up the creek without a paddle, stuck with a load of migrants no one wants. Believe me they would learn to adapt very quickly. I have heard of it happening, a ship with some illegals on board. It got very expensive for the ship owner/operator. I bet the got a lot more serious about checking who was allowed on board afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Uk runs a 100 billion a year trade deficit with the EU. If the EU and UK impose tariffs, its going to hurt the EU a lot more than it hurts us. Lets not confuse him with reality....... The UK is of course the EU's largest export market. They would be as keen as mustard to strike a deal with us. Clearly as favourable to them as possible but everything is to play for. There are other markets we can go too and we have the whole Commonwealth onside who will be looking to strike deals with us. If trade from the EU does decrease I for one will look forward to much less Polish/German/ Spanish/Romanian/ect/ect heavy traffic on our roads as compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Try telling that to Farage and his cronies who think they can negotiate a post EU deal that keeps all of the benefits of the single market with none of the obligations. Where does Farage fit into this? Why do you think it would be 'he and his cronies' negotiating any deal? Do you not understand UK politics? Farage has nil responsibility in this regard. He is simply an MEP and a current leader of a minor UK political party. Take it from me quite categorically he won't be negotiating anything. Edited February 8, 2016 by geezer466 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I think the french are obliged to take them back if they have travelled without the necessary documentation. Could be wrong of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I have heard of it happening, a ship with some illegals on board. It got very expensive for the ship owner/operator. I bet the got a lot more serious about checking who was allowed on board afterwards. same deal with planes I think. Bascially, if a person doesn't have the correct docs etc I believe it is the airlines responsibility to return them to their point of origin. Oh yeah, and in the UKs case I think there is a potential fine for the airline as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 same deal with planes I think. Bascially, if a person doesn't have the correct docs etc I believe it is the airlines responsibility to return them to their point of origin. Oh yeah, and in the UKs case I think there is a potential fine for the airline as well. Which makes Cameron's claims and scaremongering all the more senseless? Does he not understand how the legislation he drafts and votes on works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 If you lived in Dover then I guess you might think differently, unless you fancied having the Jungle next door. There is little doubt that if the UK chose Brexit then the French would rip up the treaty that allows the UK to check vehicles on their side of the Channel. There would be no reason for the French to continue with an arrangement that benefits the UK and does nothing for them. If you were a French politician would you argue for a treaty that benefits a non EU country that results in thousands of migrants being camped outside Calais? Much easier to scrap the treaty and have the camps in the UK. Presuming that we left the EU and then didn't bother with any border enforcement, so that the migrants hanging around in Calais could just waltz in, why would they hang around in Dover? They're not in Calais because they like ports, or because of the beneficial effects of the sea air. I'd wager that London was a more likely target than Dover wouldn't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Yah - the camp will move to Dover is not credible. The migrants accumulate in Calias as that is where the port is. As soon as they cross the channel - poof! - off to London, bradford, Luton, or Slough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southmartin Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 http://capx.co/if-david-cameron-thinks-the-eu-wants-to-shunt-illegal-immigrants-on-to-britain-why-does-he-want-to-stay/Let’s start with the basics. The reciprocal stationing of UK and French immigration officials on both sides of the Channel has nothing whatever to do with the EU. It rests on two bilateral deals between London and Paris: the 1993 Sangatte Protocol and the 2003 Le Touquet Treaty. This is the key point to remember when David Cameron says that Brexit might somehow shift migrants from Calais to Kent.http://order-order.com/2016/02/08/french-government-disputes-cameron-on-calais/The French interior minister last year rubbished the idea promoted by Cameron today that France might tear up their agreement with Britain on border controls if we left the EU. Bernard Cazeneuve said: “Calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution. It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue. It is a foolhardy path, and one the government will not pursue. On the contrary, we’re going to make the border even more watertight to dissuade smugglers and migrants, respect international rules and reduce the pressure on Calais.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Cameron wasn't referring to politicians in power in France now. He was referring to those who may be in power after next year who may have a very different outlook on the treaty, particularly if the UK turns it's back on the rest of the EU. Ironically it is Marine LePen and her isolationist policies that will be influencial. To those who say the UK will just send them back, how many more illegal immigrants finished up in the UK in the years before the LeTouquet treaty than currently? Edited February 9, 2016 by campervanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 same deal with planes I think. Bascially, if a person doesn't have the correct docs etc I believe it is the airlines responsibility to return them to their point of origin. Oh yeah, and in the UKs case I think there is a potential fine for the airline as well. How to stop imports/exports via the Channel in one move. Have you any idea how many vehcles use the tunnel and ferries every year? Who is going to police such a system? How would it work? How much would it cost to administer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 How to stop imports/exports via the Channel in one move. Have you any idea how many vehcles use the tunnel and ferries every year? Who is going to police such a system? How would it work? How much would it cost to administer? They are. All the Worlds airlines flying to the UK already do this. Identity documents and visa's are checked. If they are not in order persons are refused entry. Up to the airline to return them from whence they came. These checks already occur on persons using the tunnel via the Eurostar. Same would apply to the ferry/le shuttle. It wouldn't be a huge problem for them. If costs are increased in administration then these of course would be passed onto the end users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) They used to police it before the mass immigration (roughly after year 2000) - maybe they'll have to refer to the archives to work out how to do it again. The massive increase has happened because they've allowed it to happen and effectively encouraged it to happen. Edited February 9, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Sink all non approved boats in the channel who ignore turn around warnings. #problemsolved Return them whence they came. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robo1968 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Farage is a devious man with a hidden agenda. And loves celebrity. Sounds like any/all policians? He does not give a toss about the UK, only himself. And surrounds himself with fools, xenophobes, bigots, and basically anybody who will make him look like the smartest man in the pub. Just what is his agenda then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.