EU will force the UK to take 90,000 immigrants

Despite having a legal EU opt out, the EU say they will force the UK to agree to immigrant quotas

Time for Brexit?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3409334/Calais-migrants-win-human-right-live-here.html

And if we leave what duty will the French have towards us? Rather than house camps for would be immigrants in Calais, why won't they send them on to Britain with a cheery wave.

As can be seen by the article, there are a lot of people who say "the French must do this, the Greeks must do that and the Germans must do the other, but we shouldn't have to do anything"

There is also the comment that if we leave the EU we will have control of our borders. That will be like the Italians and the Maltese and the Greeks have control of their sea coast. The only reason we do not have boat people in Newhaven or Folkstone or Plymouth is because the French don't let traffickers organise and set sail.

When these people do arrive, then the question is what are we going to do with them? People will say send them back. To where? We are at war with Assad. There are no flights.

Fools will say that if the French allow them to come to the UK, we send them back to France. There is a world of difference between the French ceasing to obstruct a flow of people travelling to the UK under their own steam and the UK officially trying to deport people who do not wish to go to a foreign country. That would be an international incident and the would not let them land with soldiers.

Actually if we leave the EU we have total control of our borders so the EU cannot force us to take immigrants or try and blackmail us as they are here and we don't have to obey EU immigration laws so if France try & send them here we can send them straight back.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Italy has total control of its borders against Libya. Despite an international naval flotilla stationed between Libya and Italy, how many thousands arrived last year?

France will not send them to Britain. France will simply cease bothering to stop them. So if a Breton fisherman (or for that matter a Cornish one) thinks he will make more money out of Syrians rather than crab and lands folk in the middle of the night on the Sussex coast, they are our problem.

It is nonsense to think that in these circumstances, we are going to be able to put these folk on the first Eurostar back to France,

It's 2016 and people are still using the DM as a creditable source...

More fool Italy that is their incompetence, most non EU nations control their borders just fine e.g. Australia had the same problem with the boats, they refused the boats entry & sent the people back and the boats stopped coming.

And if we leave what duty will the French have towards us? Rather than house camps for would be immigrants in Calais, why won't they send them on to Britain with a cheery wave.

As can be seen by the article, there are a lot of people who say "the French must do this, the Greeks must do that and the Germans must do the other, but we shouldn't have to do anything"

There is also the comment that if we leave the EU we will have control of our borders. That will be like the Italians and the Maltese and the Greeks have control of their sea coast. The only reason we do not have boat people in Newhaven or Folkstone or Plymouth is because the French don't let traffickers organise and set sail.

When these people do arrive, then the question is what are we going to do with them? People will say send them back. To where? We are at war with Assad. There are no flights.

Fools will say that if the French allow them to come to the UK, we send them back to France. There is a world of difference between the French ceasing to obstruct a flow of people travelling to the UK under their own steam and the UK officially trying to deport people who do not wish to go to a foreign country. That would be an international incident and the would not let them land with soldiers.

That assumes an overriding British interest in keeping the Channel Tunnel efficient or even open at all. Given that it is French-owned and loss-making, closing the Chunnel seems a perfectly viable course of action. Given the choice between sabotaging their own company and continuing to cooperate over Calais I think they will prefer continued cooperation - the immigrants are staying in France either way.

All of this is only partially true. Britain built fences at Calais and enforced a closed border against those who do not possess visas or passports of countries whose citizens do not require visas or national ID cards of EU memberstates. The Schengen area could have done the same at the Schengen external border. It chose not to.

You are assuming that the Schengen governments want to stop this flow of immigrants as the UK does; the reality is that Germany, Sweden, Austria and Finland wanted the flow of immigrants and other states went along with it only on the understanding that the vast majority would go to those four countries. When Austria and Germany started talking about border controls, Hungary built a fence and ended illegal immigration overnight.

Boats complicate matters but not to an extreme degree. Boats can be intercepted, boarded and turned around. They can be left in sight of land with their fuel drained. Boats operated by French nationals can be seized and auctioned off in the UK, their captains judicially imprisoned or indefinitely detained as irregular combatants in an undeclared war. France could of course do all the same things in the Mediterranean, as could Italy. They simply choose not to. The French and Italian fleets standing between their countries and Libya increase the number of immigrants who arrive than would without their involvement.

I would also point out to you and other posters that the EU and Britain's membership of it are largely beside the point. Britain is effectively not a member of the EU for immigration purposes where it concerns non-EU citizens. Britain's border arrangements with the EU are just as sound or vulnerable inside the EU as they would be outside it. We can be coerced by threat of non-cooperation by France also while we are inside the EU.

Yes it does. However, this is often the point with those who offer "easy" populist solutions solutions to difficult problems. When difficulties with what are proposed are highlighted, the result is usually to "rework society" around whatever cause the populist campaigner is concerned about. "Leave the EU and all immigration problems will end" plays much better than "Leave the EU and all immigration problems will end but the Chunnel will close and food will be more expensive in the shops".

The Schengen states did want a secure outer border and one of the reasons why the East European countries are upset is that they spent a lot of money at the request of the EU core to secure their borders against states to the east.

The problem is that Greece should never have been included in Schengen for the simple reason that it is not contiguous with the rest of the EU.Indeed an awful lot of the EU's problems tend to start from "Greece should never..."



I do not agree. Sweden and to some extent Finland had been humanitarian minded for decades but their actions had not induced refugee movement. Indeed they had relieved refugee problems for other countries by resettling people direct from camps in other countries. I think you are just wrong about Austria which has maintained a barely concealed xenophobia. The rest of Europe had come to believe that German opinion coincided with broad European norms. Essentially Europe had forgotten about the War. Then suddenly last year Germany was convulsed by an outbreak of war guilt and it was that "we must take everyone because the Nazis were so beastly" that has led to these events.



We have seen what actually happens in the Med and there are no easy answers. No tactic maintains public support. We would be faced with the same issues. Moreover, I limited my previous post to sea crossings because it was easier to deal with, but effectively stowaway prevention both on ships and lorries require co-operation throughout Europe and not merely at the Channel ports.

You have an undisclosed premise here which is that you regard membership of the EU as bringing no diplomatic gains to the UK. You regard Britain as being no less able to achieve its diplomatic aims with EU members outside of the EU than within it.

That position is more sophisticated than most opponents of EU membership who, as I said in my previous post tend to start from "country X must" and "why should we do what country X wants"

This is what was said in Australia and they ended this traffic overnight.

Australia hasn't completely cured the problem but has severely reduced it. They have the advantage of geography with a difficult and dangerous sea passage but what they have done primarily is have closed camps in remote locations. There is a lottery but no jackpot. The push factors, war, terrorism and poverty remain but the pull factors are eliminated.

The Daily Mail came up with one of the stupidest pieces on immigration a few weeks ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3366575/Senseless-Syrian-refugees-foisted-remote-Scottish-island-high-unemployment-poverty-given-perks-locals-don-t-enjoy.html

to which the answer is that it is a cold, wet, remote Scottish island to which the migrants had no ambition to move.