Soldato
The agreement won't change with France. It is against international law to start shipping them over to the UK so that is why we have this agreement in place.
Brexit thread - what happens next
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
Sarkozy's been riding the unicorn on the Calais issue. How likely is he to become the French president again? That's the only snag I can see. Further, I can't recall whether the treaty itself refers to the UK or France or both as EU members. I'm sure that's something May, Johnson and Rudd will receive advice on in due course.
Caporegime
International law? No. This is about France doing us a favour that they're now finding onerous. If you're thinking of the first country thing: that's EU law, the Dublin Convention.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
From a quick Google, it's us, France and Belgium that have juxtaposed arrangements in place, and at least two things will be affected:
Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the French Republic concerning the implementation of frontier controls at sea ports of both countries on the Channel and North Sea
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
After the Treaty of Maastricht and protocols which were subsumed by the latter treaty and the act, both may be interpreted in the context of an EU freedom allowing for joint control of external borders and for a member's officers to move about the EU (even though we're not in Schengen). Can't recall if Dougan went into great detail about this.
Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the French Republic concerning the implementation of frontier controls at sea ports of both countries on the Channel and North Sea
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
After the Treaty of Maastricht and protocols which were subsumed by the latter treaty and the act, both may be interpreted in the context of an EU freedom allowing for joint control of external borders and for a member's officers to move about the EU (even though we're not in Schengen). Can't recall if Dougan went into great detail about this.
Soldato
They can move the immigration control to the UK. Doesn't mean they are legally allowed to stick people on a ferry and send them to the UK. It will be blocked through international law, the UK will enforce passport and visa checks by the ferry operators which they are allowed to do and as a final step they will close the route to France. It will last all of 1 maybe 2 ships before the plan failed. Even then international law allows the UK to return them to the first safe country I.e. France.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,586
France are responsible for letting that wasp nest get out of control, it’s nothing to do with us. Just another product of the irresponsible left.
No one is saying they would actively send ships with immigrants on board.
However, they don't have to do anything to stop it if they wished. Once on the UK side these people become the UK's problem.
Up until now France have realised that if this was actually possible, Calais would have 10x more immigrants in the first place and so as a deterrent have had the border on their side.
Imagine having it on the UK side. They would all apply for asylum and then you would have to follow due process before being able to deport them back to their country of origin if you can even find out where that is.
After due process if they claim asylum.
However, they don't have to do anything to stop it if they wished. Once on the UK side these people become the UK's problem.
Up until now France have realised that if this was actually possible, Calais would have 10x more immigrants in the first place and so as a deterrent have had the border on their side.
Imagine having it on the UK side. They would all apply for asylum and then you would have to follow due process before being able to deport them back to their country of origin if you can even find out where that is.
After due process if they claim asylum.
Last edited:
Simple enough, just stop giving a **** about what the "international community" thinks, and halt all any asylum cases within the UK that happen to come from malicious vessels.
Then instead of doing some stupid loop with the French, we send em to the bottom of France instead, so that they'd have to travel all the way back or at great expense to the French Taxpayer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
Well, looking at the decades concerned, it's a fair mix, chap. Most recently: Tony and Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama got involved in Lybia; everyone and their uncle roughhoused Syria; Israeli-Palestine stand-off never went away; civil strife in Africa across the political spectrum. Same broad spread for the foreign intelligence involvement in the region, and governments have rotated in the meantime. And not even one Corbyn character making big calls.
Stop being irresponsible with your history.
Last edited:
Quite... remove the border and we'll have some more migrants slipping through the net as having ferry operators having to check passports/visas will be less efficient... but the French will have even more migrants arriving and a bigger bottleneck in Paris.
The way to deal with this that actually works is to take a tougher approach and start sending more back, isolate those who arrive while processing them. Australia has done this and has pretty much solved the issue of economic migrants traveling through several safe countries in order to get there.
Soldato
The law allows them to claim asylum first or third country. The UK will be allowed to send them to first country if wanted. Arguably France is already third country which makes it even harder for refugees to come to the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,586
The places they are coming from have always been war torn crapholes. The only difference now is with modern tech word spread around the world within days that sheer numbers trump EU borders. From that point on it was a feeding frenzy for any chancer from a **** country. And while the chancers are creating a rape/crime tsunami across Europe, they’re using finite resources and destroying good will for genuine refugees.Well, looking at the decades concerned, it's a fair mix, chap. Most recently: Tony and Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama got involved in Lybia; everyone and their uncle roughhoused Syria; Israeli-Palestine stand-off never went away; civil strife in Africa across the political spectrum. Same broad spread for the foreign intelligence involvement in the region, and governments have rotated in the meantime. And not even one Corbyn character making big calls.
Stop being irresponsible with your history.
Don't be silly we are going to get a treaty that benefits the people and punishes big business. We'll force the US market to accept such terms because we are a bigger market than the EU.
Soldato
which we all knew, but at the same time they can't lose us buying from them. Thus the process has to be carefully handled but can't look too inviting.
OFC other countries don't have our importing power so they will have less to bring to the table.
I just want it to hurry up as this uncertainty will keep us in a damaging limbo, at least if we leave and bottom out we can rebuild.
I think you are missing a fundamental point here. Buying power will take a back seat to EU collapse which if you read the full article is a very real possibility.
If the EU starts to implode then the financial and political ripples will be felt globally not just in Europe and not just in the UK. I think too many people are thinking parochially in this thread and there is far more at stake than just us.
Last edited:
Soldato
Really?
Sounds more like the paranoid ravings of a bigot to me.
If there was anything close to what you suggest I suggest every one of the Eu nations would have pretty much nothing but that as news.
Its not what I see when I travel with work, nor what any of my European colleagues mention at all.
Soldato
Hopefully the other 99.99% of the country are a bit more sensible.
Choosing to go against the "international community" despite the legal issues would make us completely untrustworthy internationally, good luck with trade deals then.
Starting to sound like some people would consider it acceptable to have as much trust in us as north korea, just to stop dem immigrants
- Status