FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Moving the Calais border back to Britain
Moving the Calais border back to Britain
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Alain Juppé is the favourite to become th next French President and he wants to tear up the Le Touquet agreement. He says that pure logic dictates the the UK border should be in the U.K. and not in France and so the UK should be dealing with the people who want to be in the UK in the U.K. and not in France.
Naturally, Prime Minister May disagrees and says that the Le Touquet agreement is set in stone but as the UK is doing its very best to piss off each and every one of our European neighbours, should we be surprised that others care little about what the UK wants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If we actually got our act together and processed asylum applications in weeks instead of years I don't think it would matter a jot where the border was.
Put the camp in the UK and process people quickly, most of them would fail for asylum anyhow! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I say put the border controls on the beach, if they want to make a camp near it, they can build rafts and float about in the channel."
good idea. Then we can deal with the migrants afterwards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
it is the French responsibility to check peoples passports before they leave France, so anyone coming to the UK from France should already be bona fide.
In terms of 'refugees' France is a '1st world country' and it is perfectly reasonable for them to process any refugees. if they have a valid reason for being in the UK then they can apply to the UK for access. I struggle to see why we feel we have any responsibility for 'the Jungle'. It is a French problem, and one that they could and should solve with ease.
Cameron was right to say that we should take refugees direct from camps in Syria. Sadly all that Merkel's 'let them all come' statement did was to cause a massive dislocation of people and led to many economic migrants coming rather than refugees.
People moan that we should not get involved in other peoples problems - this is fair enough up to a point, but we need to work to create a UN which will get involved and stop millions of people suffering.
Just for clarity, I am Liberal, wanted to stay in the EU and believe in free movement (up to a point). This is not a rant, but an attempt to be pragmatic. This is why I harp on about the UN. It is clearly flawed (massively), but it should be the one dealing with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, etc. We should be advocating refirm to the UN and its active participation in resolving conflict within National Boundaries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it is the French responsibility to check peoples passports before they leave France, so anyone coming to the UK from France should already be bona fide.
In terms of 'refugees' France is a '1st world country' and it is perfectly reasonable for them to process any refugees. if they have a valid reason for being in the UK then they can apply to the UK for access. I struggle to see why we feel we have any responsibility for 'the Jungle'. It is a French problem, and one that they could and should solve with ease.
Cameron was right to say that we should take refugees direct from camps in Syria. Sadly all that Merkel's 'let them all come' statement did was to cause a massive dislocation of people and led to many economic migrants coming rather than refugees.
People moan that we should not get involved in other peoples problems - this is fair enough up to a point, but we need to work to create a UN which will get involved and stop millions of people suffering.
Just for clarity, I am Liberal, wanted to stay in the EU and believe in free movement (up to a point). This is not a rant, but an attempt to be pragmatic. This is why I harp on about the UN. It is clearly flawed (massively), but it should be the one dealing with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, etc. We should be advocating refirm to the UN and its active participation in resolving conflict within National Boundaries. "
First 3 paragraphs well said, 
sadly the UN is dead in the water and no longer a deterrent or even any good at peace keeping |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it"
A number 10 source...
Theresa May insisted...
There is a lot of this going round at the moment.
Calais is not a part of the UK, in fact we lost Calais in 1558 so if the French decide that they want our border post removed from their country it will go no matter what No.10 say or Theresa May insists.
Maybe rather than No.10 briefing against the man who may well be the most powerful man in France within days and our PM insisting that the French must do what she wants she and No. 10 would do better to keep their big mouths shut and look to build bridges rather than further weaken already strained relationships. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we actually got our act together and processed asylum applications in weeks instead of years I don't think it would matter a jot where the border was.
Put the camp in the UK and process people quickly, most of them would fail for asylum anyhow!"
Then they say their going to be persecuted back home so they get to stay so we don't breach their human rights  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we actually got our act together and processed asylum applications in weeks instead of years I don't think it would matter a jot where the border was.
Put the camp in the UK and process people quickly, most of them would fail for asylum anyhow!
Then they say their going to be persecuted back home so they get to stay so we don't breach their human rights "
Yes they would they should have stayed in the first safe country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
"
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel "
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum."
There are some people who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place, and there are other people who have dedicated themselves to making the world a worse place, including by destroying the envirnoment.
I'm very proud of which one I am.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
"
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
Theresa May has absolutely no power to stop France from doing this, she can harp on about bilateral agreements as much as she wants but that agreement can be torn up in a heartbeat.
It's a bloody shame, but we need to prepare ourself for it as it's very possible it will happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum."
There are also a lot of 'not in my back yard' bigots who talk out of their arse too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum.
There are also a lot of 'not in my back yard' bigots who talk out of their arse too"
You would be forgiven for thinking we don't live in Britain when you see the refusal of some to allow others to voice their own opinions on here, if you dare to disagree with them you are automatically labelled as a 'tree hugger', a 'leftie' or a 'traitor'.....if we all thought exactly the same we would be living in North Korea, it's nonsense to think that we can only stifle the views of others by labelling them with childish names and insults.
The beauty of debate is challenging the views of others with meaningful and polite dialogue, resorting to insults makes you look like a bully or at best a child. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum.
There are also a lot of 'not in my back yard' bigots who talk out of their arse too
You would be forgiven for thinking we don't live in Britain when you see the refusal of some to allow others to voice their own opinions on here, if you dare to disagree with them you are automatically labelled as a 'tree hugger', a 'leftie' or a 'traitor'.....if we all thought exactly the same we would be living in North Korea, it's nonsense to think that we can only stifle the views of others by labelling them with childish names and insults.
The beauty of debate is challenging the views of others with meaningful and polite dialogue, resorting to insults makes you look like a bully or at best a child."
Forgive me because in was only giving them a taste of their own medicine .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum.
There are also a lot of 'not in my back yard' bigots who talk out of their arse too
You would be forgiven for thinking we don't live in Britain when you see the refusal of some to allow others to voice their own opinions on here, if you dare to disagree with them you are automatically labelled as a 'tree hugger', a 'leftie' or a 'traitor'.....if we all thought exactly the same we would be living in North Korea, it's nonsense to think that we can only stifle the views of others by labelling them with childish names and insults.
The beauty of debate is challenging the views of others with meaningful and polite dialogue, resorting to insults makes you look like a bully or at best a child.
Forgive me because in was only giving them a taste of their own medicine ...."
Sorry I shouldn't have quoted you, it was aimed at some of the shameful posts I've seen on here over the last couple of weeks.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If border crossings control is moved to our shores it will surely make it more difficult for illegals trying to come here.
They made it as far as France, but they can't bum a lift across the English Channel.
It might well be a blessing in disguise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They have to get to France first, which they do. Once on the trucks they have a fair chance of getting in to Dover without being checked.
When all are checked on our side it should make this harder for them to do. More will be caught and deported, and there will be no "jungle camp" on our island.
I think it will be more efficient here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"They have to get to France first, which they do. Once on the trucks they have a fair chance of getting in to Dover without being checked.
When all are checked on our side it should make this harder for them to do. More will be caught and deported, and there will be no "jungle camp" on our island.
I think it will be more efficient here."
We won't deport them though if they claim asylum, which they almost always do....then they enter into the very long winded asylum process which can take up to seven years.
There is no such thing as instant deportation once asylum is triggered.....that's common knowledge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Downing Street last night dismissed Mr Juppe’s threat as an election tactic that would never be delivered on.
A No10 source said: “This is a long standing bilateral agreement that works for both sides. We would expect to see it continue”.
Prime Minister Theresa May has also insisted the current border agreement is working and there are no plans to alter it
The truth is, we the UK are far to lenient with anyone trying to enter the UK illegally, we should make it so that they fear the UK should they enter illegally,
there are far too many pc tree huggers who want to save the world on this forum.
There are also a lot of 'not in my back yard' bigots who talk out of their arse too
You would be forgiven for thinking we don't live in Britain when you see the refusal of some to allow others to voice their own opinions on here, if you dare to disagree with them you are automatically labelled as a 'tree hugger', a 'leftie' or a 'traitor'.....if we all thought exactly the same we would be living in North Korea, it's nonsense to think that we can only stifle the views of others by labelling them with childish names and insults.
The beauty of debate is challenging the views of others with meaningful and polite dialogue, resorting to insults makes you look like a bully or at best a child."
This..
The attempted shouting down by some on here is indicative of some sort of insecure bullying and this forum has become less welcoming for new posters who only see aggressiveness..
Empathy, common decency and basic humanity is evidently missing in some and that's a bit sad.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds. "
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?"
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?"
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement????? "
answer the question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?"
It's not a British problem, it's a problem for the whole of Europe and beyond....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?"
Because Britain has been painted as the panecia! much like London was years ago where kids ran away to make thier fortune only to find bitter dissapointment  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
answer the question"
CandM you do enjoy playing dumb dont you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
answer the question
CandM you do enjoy playing dumb dont you? "
And you love to avoid questions don't you? I'll try again though, why is it a British problem? And while we are at it I'll try this one again - what will it take for you to admit you voted the wrong way in the referendum? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
answer the question
CandM you do enjoy playing dumb dont you?
And you love to avoid questions don't you? I'll try again though, why is it a British problem? And while we are at it I'll try this one again - what will it take for you to admit you voted the wrong way in the referendum?"
What is it with you guys and the referendum? All the time ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement????? "
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you. "
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?"
Because Britain is not on the way from the middle east to France probably. Many migrants have stopped in other European countries including France.
It doesn't matter whether you or I think this is or isn't a British problem, it's what the French think that counts. If the French believe that it's in their interests to maintain Touquet they will, if they don't they won't. And right now, in France, the populist argument is winning support over the more complex, rational, evidence lead arguments being put forward by the experts.
From your previous posts you should understand that, surely?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet? "
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet? "
I'm sure the treaty of Le Touquet is all the talk in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, Iraq etc. Seriously how naive are you? You really think that the people trying to come to the UK 1) are aware of the treaty, 2) care about it? Why don't you give me a % for both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is absolutely no doubt that security at our ports and along our coastline needs to be stepped up. We simply cannot allow people to just enter the UK whenever they feel like it. Also the processing of Assylum claimants needs to be speeded up, seven years is way way too long.
This is an island, it is time we protected it properly, and put a stop to all the would be invaders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet? "
I'm not sure about the 10 fold increase but I would expect the numbers heading here through France to increase massively. Problem is that the populists in France say those saying that are simply scaremongering and anyway, they can all just be put on boat and sent on their merry way to where they want to go to, the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet?
I'm not sure about the 10 fold increase but I would expect the numbers heading here through France to increase massively. Problem is that the populists in France say those saying that are simply scaremongering and anyway, they can all just be put on boat and sent on their merry way to where they want to go to, the UK."
Not if laws are put in place here to fine the ferry companies. The ferry companies won't allow it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet?
I'm sure the treaty of Le Touquet is all the talk in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, Iraq etc. Seriously how naive are you? You really think that the people trying to come to the UK 1) are aware of the treaty, 2) care about it? Why don't you give me a % for both."
Well here is a first for fab forums, you are disagreeing with the experts. Hallelujah.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that."
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK. "
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet?
I'm not sure about the 10 fold increase but I would expect the numbers heading here through France to increase massively. Problem is that the populists in France say those saying that are simply scaremongering and anyway, they can all just be put on boat and sent on their merry way to where they want to go to, the UK.
Not if laws are put in place here to fine the ferry companies. The ferry companies won't allow it. "
And the French could pass a "Free Passage" law insisting that ferry operators have to accept for travel any persons that the French authorities have approved for travel. Passing ever more laws to try and solve this problem or trying to put the responsibility for border control on the ferry companies is not the solution. Even if it does stop the ferry companies it won't stop the migrants. If their willing to risk crossing the med in a rubber dingy I'm sure, without French patrols stopping them, they won't hesitate to try to cross the channel in one to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show."
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK. "
Getting spotted by the authorities is ideal for them. It means they'll be rescued and brought into the country. They can't be returned to the place they launched from as that breaches international law. Which is why the Italian and French authorities in the Med can't just drop the people they rescue off back in Libya even when they can see the shoreline. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Getting spotted by the authorities is ideal for them. It means they'll be rescued and brought into the country. They can't be returned to the place they launched from as that breaches international law. Which is why the Italian and French authorities in the Med can't just drop the people they rescue off back in Libya even when they can see the shoreline."
Australia turn boats full of migrants away, not saying it's right but they still do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet?
I'm not sure about the 10 fold increase but I would expect the numbers heading here through France to increase massively. Problem is that the populists in France say those saying that are simply scaremongering and anyway, they can all just be put on boat and sent on their merry way to where they want to go to, the UK.
Not if laws are put in place here to fine the ferry companies. The ferry companies won't allow it. "
So Centaur you seem to be saying that the treaty is indeed useless, and all it needs is a change in legislation. I'm glad you have finally come round to my point of view |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just put border officials on the boats and the entrance to the channel tunnel.
No passport or visa no entry! simples.
and where do we send them when we say NO ENTRY ! ? back to france they dont want them so will just send tham back to us one way of filling in the channel tunnel
They would have to get on the train in the forst place.
no visa/ticket no travel same with the ferry if they don't have a ticket or a relavent visa they don't get on.
Passports too. If laws are put in place to heavily fine any Euro tunnel trains or cross channel Ferries carrying anyone without a ticket/visa/passport those companies will soon clamp down on it and effectively the train company and the ferry company become the border force. UK border force officials could also be put on the eurotunnel trains and the cross channel ferries.
France are not going to scrap the treaty of Le Touquet anyway, as it works for France. If they scrap it, it would lead to a greater influx of migrants in France, which they don't want. Britain has also given France untold millions over the years since the Treaty of Le Touquet started to fund and improve security and border controls at Calais. If the treaty is scrapped we would be within our rights to send France a bill to reclaim those funds.
Putting more of the responsibility for immigration on the ferry companies could work but it's not a cost free option and the cost to the ferry companies will be passed on to ordinary passengers.
I wouldn't be so sure Le Touquet agreement won't be ripped up by the French. Feelings are running hard about the whole issue in France and whilst the rational experts tell the French that Le Touquet is in France's best interests populist politicians are telling them this is a British problem and why should France have to carry the social economic price for a British problem.
I wonder if the French will listen to the experts or the populists?
Why is this a British problem? Why is there not a 'jungle' full of people at Dover trying to get to France?
So why would the French want to keep the agreement?????
That's already been answered if you paid attention and bothered to read the thread properly. The French would want to keep the agreement because it works for France. If they scrap this agreement it will lead to a bigger influx of migrants into France. As Unleashed Kraken already said all of the experts say this, and we all know you blindly follow the opinion of experts don't you.
I've read it, I guess you are trying to play dumb too. Calais is connected to land masses that stretch to South Africa, Russia, Malaysia and all the countries inbetween (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan to name but a few) so the French help to stop people coming to the UK from there.
Dover is in England and the connected by land to Wales and Scotland. UK citizens already have the right to travel to France, but not all the countries connected to France have the right to travel to the UK.
You said that it stops migrants going to France. Well as I have said, they already have the legal right, so no, it doesn't stop any migrants. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, I would say that there are very few illegal migrants, asylum seekers or refugees from the UK trying to get into France.
Get it yet?
Treaty of Le Touquet deters migrants/refugees from making the trip to France because they know the treaty of Le Touquet is in place and they won't be able to get any further than Calais. If it is scrapped it will encourage more migrants/refugees to make the journey into France. France would see a ten fold increase in the numbers arriving in its country. As has been pointed out all the experts say this.
Do you Get it yet?
I'm not sure about the 10 fold increase but I would expect the numbers heading here through France to increase massively. Problem is that the populists in France say those saying that are simply scaremongering and anyway, they can all just be put on boat and sent on their merry way to where they want to go to, the UK.
Not if laws are put in place here to fine the ferry companies. The ferry companies won't allow it.
So Centaur you seem to be saying that the treaty is indeed useless, and all it needs is a change in legislation. I'm glad you have finally come round to my point of view "
I didn't say that at all, lol, god knows how you came to that conclusion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show.
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here."
You don't appear to be aware just how busy the English Channel is, especially but not exclusively between England and France. There will be a stronger chance of getting run down by a ship than getting across. I'm not saying that I would be happy to hear about it, but that is the reality, it would be suicide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Getting spotted by the authorities is ideal for them. It means they'll be rescued and brought into the country. They can't be returned to the place they launched from as that breaches international law. Which is why the Italian and French authorities in the Med can't just drop the people they rescue off back in Libya even when they can see the shoreline.
Australia turn boats full of migrants away, not saying it's right but they still do it. "
bloody sure its right; if this happens every time then they are going to say "stuff this" lets try somewhere else
lets trek all the way round to UK, they are gullible and believe any thing they are told
The Italian coastguard has rescued more than 2,000 migrants in a major operation off the Libyan coast,
if these migrants keep getting rescued, they are going to keep on coming, if more than 2000 drowned in one day then they may have a rethink
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Getting spotted by the authorities is ideal for them. It means they'll be rescued and brought into the country. They can't be returned to the place they launched from as that breaches international law. Which is why the Italian and French authorities in the Med can't just drop the people they rescue off back in Libya even when they can see the shoreline.
Australia turn boats full of migrants away, not saying it's right but they still do it.
bloody sure its right; if this happens every time then they are going to say "stuff this" lets try somewhere else
lets trek all the way round to UK, they are gullible and believe any thing they are told
The Italian coastguard has rescued more than 2,000 migrants in a major operation off the Libyan coast,
if these migrants keep getting rescued, they are going to keep on coming, if more than 2000 drowned in one day then they may have a rethink
"
I guess human life is just another thing you just don't give a shit about to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show.
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here.
You don't appear to be aware just how busy the English Channel is, especially but not exclusively between England and France. There will be a stronger chance of getting run down by a ship than getting across. I'm not saying that I would be happy to hear about it, but that is the reality, it would be suicide."
I don't think you realise just how big the English Channel is and how impossible it is to police the whole of the south coast of England. We need the willing cooperation of the French to try and stop these people setting of into the channel in the first place. Without it it is only a matter of time before these people start turning up in large numbers on beaches all along the south coast. It's already started in some places. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show.
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here.
You don't appear to be aware just how busy the English Channel is, especially but not exclusively between England and France. There will be a stronger chance of getting run down by a ship than getting across. I'm not saying that I would be happy to hear about it, but that is the reality, it would be suicide.
I don't think you realise just how big the English Channel is and how impossible it is to police the whole of the south coast of England. We need the willing cooperation of the French to try and stop these people setting of into the channel in the first place. Without it it is only a matter of time before these people start turning up in large numbers on beaches all along the south coast. It's already started in some places."
I have been out fishing wrecks off Dover many times and have had to reel in when radar picks up an aproching ship.
How the fuck a dinghy stands a chance is beyond me.
As I pointed out already it will be suicide! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show.
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here.
You don't appear to be aware just how busy the English Channel is, especially but not exclusively between England and France. There will be a stronger chance of getting run down by a ship than getting across. I'm not saying that I would be happy to hear about it, but that is the reality, it would be suicide.
I don't think you realise just how big the English Channel is and how impossible it is to police the whole of the south coast of England. We need the willing cooperation of the French to try and stop these people setting of into the channel in the first place. Without it it is only a matter of time before these people start turning up in large numbers on beaches all along the south coast. It's already started in some places.
I have been out fishing wrecks off Dover many times and have had to reel in when radar picks up an aproching ship.
How the fuck a dinghy stands a chance is beyond me.
As I pointed out already it will be suicide!"
And you think that;
1. The traffickers care?
2. That the trafficked know that? ( or that many aren't willing to take the risk?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this talk about borders guards on the tunnel and ferries won't stop illegal entry to the UK. There will be a whole new bunch of criminals putting them in crap boats to get here. The Mediterranean is huge compared to the Channel and they cross that.
What is stopping the people smugglers putting them on cramp boats now and sending them over the channel then?
I'll tell you why it's because you can't compare the English channel with the Mediterranean Sea. The English channel is one of the most crowded, busiest, and congested shipping routes in the entire world. As you also pointed out it is much smaller than the Med, and is therefore easier for our border force to police the channel than it would be to police the Mediterranean Sea. Inflatable dingy's crammed full of migrants would be quite easy for our border force to spot. If our border force somehow managed to miss one it would most likely be spotted by a ferry and all the ferry would have to do is radio that information to the nearest port in the UK.
Too right, and it is much more dangerous with all the fast moving ships on the Channel. It is difficult enough to get out of their way in a decent fishing boat, I know this because a mate of mine skippers a boat in Dover. You have to have someone keeping their eye on the radar to make sure you have time to move. If you can see the ship it might well be too late. A rubber dinghy would have no chance, it would be a horror show.
All that means is that 100s or 1000s will die in the attempt but 10s of thousands will try and a lot will get through. Once they are on British soil, are picked up by a British boat or picked up by a boat on route to Britain they become a British problem and have to be dealt with here.
You don't appear to be aware just how busy the English Channel is, especially but not exclusively between England and France. There will be a stronger chance of getting run down by a ship than getting across. I'm not saying that I would be happy to hear about it, but that is the reality, it would be suicide.
I don't think you realise just how big the English Channel is and how impossible it is to police the whole of the south coast of England. We need the willing cooperation of the French to try and stop these people setting of into the channel in the first place. Without it it is only a matter of time before these people start turning up in large numbers on beaches all along the south coast. It's already started in some places.
I have been out fishing wrecks off Dover many times and have had to reel in when radar picks up an aproching ship.
How the fuck a dinghy stands a chance is beyond me.
As I pointed out already it will be suicide!
And you think that;
1. The traffickers care?
2. That the trafficked know that? ( or that many aren't willing to take the risk?
"
I think the reality is is that many on here simply "don't give a shit" about anyone, especially foreigners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out. "
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Yes the Dover straits are busy - but not that busy and very much like a motorway, traffic is channelled by direction.
It is not difficult at all for small boats to pick their way across the shipping lanes in the same way that the cross channel ferries do. That said, a small boat anywhere in the channel would have to be very unlucky to end up directly under the bows of a big ship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"Yes the Dover straits are busy - but not that busy and very much like a motorway, traffic is channelled by direction.
It is not difficult at all for small boats to pick their way across the shipping lanes in the same way that the cross channel ferries do. That said, a small boat anywhere in the channel would have to be very unlucky to end up directly under the bows of a big ship."
Having crossed the channel myself on several occasions in the early 90's in a 27ft Fairline cabin cruiser it's a hazard at times but very feasible, in fact hundreds of small boats make this trip every week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days."
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today"
You mean it used to be compassionate and it's not anymore? I agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today"
Exactly the EU made us what we are today, time for a change I think. Just saying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today
You mean it used to be compassionate and it's not anymore? I agree."
I think with the amount of migration we've had over the last 60 years many people "native" English if you like are upset about the amount of dillution England has had on it's ethnic makeup where entire towns and Cities now resemble foreign cities and quite possibly they have had enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
and to be more compassionate and allow more foreigners in only adds to the feeling of loosing the Countries identity.
I think that goes along way to explaining many peoples views on helping out like we did in the 40's compared to now.
Many people have had enough now and in that they loose the compassion towards them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
Most of the non white people in the UK are in fact born here, that's a recorded and documented fact, and that will increase year on year forever, one of the biggest problems we have in the UK is a section of our white society that just can't get that into their heads.....they mix up 'immigrants' with decendants of past immigrants into the UK.
Whether they like it or not they have absolutely no choice but to accept and embrace that fact as it ain't ever changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today
You mean it used to be compassionate and it's not anymore? I agree.
I think with the amount of migration we've had over the last 60 years many people "native" English if you like are upset about the amount of dillution England has had on it's ethnic makeup where entire towns and Cities now resemble foreign cities and quite possibly they have had enough."
Not forgetting the Celts, then the Romans; Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans....
Hugenots etc .....
Changed the ethnic and cultural make up of the land.
My English freinds are natives; a lot of ignorant people think that some of them are immigrants, because some are Sikhs or Hindus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
" Alain Juppé is the favourite to become th next French President and he wants to tear up the Le Touquet agreement. He says that pure logic dictates the the UK border should be in the U.K. and not in France and so the UK should be dealing with the people who want to be in the UK in the U.K. and not in France.
Naturally, Prime Minister May disagrees and says that the Le Touquet agreement is set in stone but as the UK is doing its very best to piss off each and every one of our European neighbours, should we be surprised that others care little about what the UK wants."
Yes the channel tunnel will have to close if the agreement is not upheld |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Most of the non white people in the UK are in fact born here, that's a recorded and documented fact, and that will increase year on year forever, one of the biggest problems we have in the UK is a section of our white society that just can't get that into their heads.....they mix up 'immigrants' with decendants of past immigrants into the UK.
Whether they like it or not they have absolutely no choice but to accept and embrace that fact as it ain't ever changing."
You're exactly correct but a lot don't look at it that way or just think more coming in will exacerbate the situation even more, that's where the lack of compassion comes from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Alain Juppé is the favourite to become th next French President and he wants to tear up the Le Touquet agreement. He says that pure logic dictates the the UK border should be in the U.K. and not in France and so the UK should be dealing with the people who want to be in the UK in the U.K. and not in France.
Naturally, Prime Minister May disagrees and says that the Le Touquet agreement is set in stone but as the UK is doing its very best to piss off each and every one of our European neighbours, should we be surprised that others care little about what the UK wants.
Yes the channel tunnel will have to close if the agreement is not upheld"
Why?
For the tunnel vehicles; uk customs / passports on arrival at Dover, French on arrival in Calais;
For Eurostar; UK border staff at the arrival stations ( ashford/ebbsfleet /St Pancras;
French at the equivalent stops (Lille etc) .
Or Revert to the " Sangatte Accord" which predates the Le Touquet treaty.
Or do passport control on the train.
The current arrangement simply makes things swifter by processing before boarding,rather than backing up travelers at point of entry.
It would be inconvenient, but that's all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
" Alain Juppé is the favourite to become th next French President and he wants to tear up the Le Touquet agreement. He says that pure logic dictates the the UK border should be in the U.K. and not in France and so the UK should be dealing with the people who want to be in the UK in the U.K. and not in France.
Naturally, Prime Minister May disagrees and says that the Le Touquet agreement is set in stone but as the UK is doing its very best to piss off each and every one of our European neighbours, should we be surprised that others care little about what the UK wants.
Yes the channel tunnel will have to close if the agreement is not upheld
Why?
For the tunnel vehicles; uk customs / passports on arrival at Dover, French on arrival in Calais;
For Eurostar; UK border staff at the arrival stations ( ashford/ebbsfleet /St Pancras;
French at the equivalent stops (Lille etc) .
Or Revert to the " Sangatte Accord" which predates the Le Touquet treaty.
Or do passport control on the train.
The current arrangement simply makes things swifter by processing before boarding,rather than backing up travelers at point of entry.
It would be inconvenient, but that's all."
It was part of the agreement for the chunnel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Alain Juppé is the favourite to become th next French President and he wants to tear up the Le Touquet agreement. He says that pure logic dictates the the UK border should be in the U.K. and not in France and so the UK should be dealing with the people who want to be in the UK in the U.K. and not in France.
Naturally, Prime Minister May disagrees and says that the Le Touquet agreement is set in stone but as the UK is doing its very best to piss off each and every one of our European neighbours, should we be surprised that others care little about what the UK wants.
Yes the channel tunnel will have to close if the agreement is not upheld
Why?
For the tunnel vehicles; uk customs / passports on arrival at Dover, French on arrival in Calais;
For Eurostar; UK border staff at the arrival stations ( ashford/ebbsfleet /St Pancras;
French at the equivalent stops (Lille etc) .
Or Revert to the " Sangatte Accord" which predates the Le Touquet treaty.
Or do passport control on the train.
The current arrangement simply makes things swifter by processing before boarding,rather than backing up travelers at point of entry.
It would be inconvenient, but that's all.
It was part of the agreement for the chunnel"
It wasn't actually; that was the Sangatte accord; (1991, effective 1994) and the extension to the Sangatte accord ( 2001)with additional checks specifically for Eurostar, which allows additional checks at different Eurostar stations, and includes stations in Belgium.
Le Touquet Treaty is a separate treaty for seaports.
Either separately or together can be rescinded by either side with 2 years notice.
It would not be a showstopper for the tunnel or Eurostar if the Sangatte accord was rescinded; just inconvenient. Neither would it be a " breach of contract " for Eurostar or Eurotunnel
If it was rescinded: I suspect the " worst case" would be for Le Touquet to go: the Tunnel one to be rescinded, with the exception of the Eurostar element which would remain.
The reality is that the proposal is electioneering by Sarzoky and Juppé.
Neither treaty has anything to do with the EU;
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today"
What you on about? England was just as much part of the UK in 1940/41 as it is now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The border is the channel. It's wide and wet and it works quite well!
Well it worked very well in 1940/41 keeped the Germans out.
It didn't keep out 100,000 Jewish child refugees though did it? No, we had more compassion in those days.
True but England was England back then not the England / UK we have today
What you on about? England was just as much part of the UK in 1940/41 as it is now."
perhaps it was a better class of people back then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
