Support NeoGAF

[Tak3n]

lets of course ignore that EU law is clear that you must claim asylum in the first safe country you come across... anyway, scare tactics to start today

EU referendum: PM says Brexit could bring Calais 'Jungle' to UK

David Cameron is expected to warn that migrant camps like the "Jungle" in Calais could appear in south-east England if the UK leaves the EU.
The PM will suggest that if a "Brexit" happens, the arrangement that allows British border guards to check passports in France could be scrapped.
It would mean that migrants would not encounter a British border guard until they were on British soil.

The BBC's political correspondent Chris Mason said Mr Cameron's warning was a sign that Downing Street was planning to emphasise what it sees as the important contribution the EU makes to the country's national security.
But Vote Leave said Mr Cameron's claims had no basis in reality. "UK border controls are in France because of a bilateral treaty, not because of our EU membership, and a result of the camps in Calais, not the cause of them," said Matthew Elliott, the campaign group's chief executive.
"Clearly, No 10 is in a blind panic over the failing renegotiation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35519210

 

[norinrad]

Well politicians often think about 90% of the people are stupid and would believe anything so there you go.

The other 10% never get their voices heard.

 

[Lead]

Scare tactics all around, same thing happened with our referendum (denmark last year). Politicians promised eternal damnation if we voted no, but our people, just like the British are entirely exhausted with the European Union thinking they're anything more than a trade union.

They've overstepped their bounds again and again, and people will have no more of it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

lets of course ignore that EU law is clear that you must claim asylum in the first safe country you come across...

But they would be out of the EU then right, so it wouldn't apply anymore to them?

Although it seems other treaties are in place between France and the UK that manage the border checks, so it is a bit strange to bring this up.

 

[KingSnake]

What has EU law to do with a non-EU country? The law doesn't stop the asylum seekers from leaving the EU.

 

[Tak3n]

But they would be out of the EU then right, so it wouldn't apply anymore to them?

Although it seems other treaties are in place between France and the UK that manage the border checks, so it is a bit strange to bring this up.

yes, but you could argue that they should not be on your soil as they crosses several countries to get here, so France et al were allowing illegal travel..

and as you mentioned this deal has nothing to do with leaving the EU and it is pure scare tactics

 

[Lagamorph]

I took it to mean that France would be under much less legal obligation to prevent migrants from attempting to illegally enter the UK, so the onus would move to the other side of the border.

 

[Tak3n]

What has EU law to do with a non-EU country? The law doesn't stop the asylum seekers from leaving the EU.

Because the UK could go the EU and claim the countries allowing these people to arrive in the UK are breaking EU law, as we could rightfully instantly send them back as they should of claimed asylum in the country they landed, they would have no right to claim asylum in the UK if they come through France et al. of course this means every human rights lawyer in the UK will have a fit, as this law is just ignored at will by just about everyone.... I was pointing out that there is no need to even have them come over

Not to mention all it would require is us building some sort of apparatus on our side of the tunnel to be able to stop people walking across, there is not reason to even let them get here

 

[Tak3n]

I took it to mean that France would be under much less legal obligation to prevent migrants from attempting to illegally enter the UK, so the onus would move to the other side of the border.

you would think, but why is it that France et al can just ignore migrants walking across their country.... the answer is of course because they know they want to get to the UK, as a non EU country we would have every right to tell the EU they all these migrants will be refused any sort of entry on to our border

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Interesting use of language to describe the camp.

 

[Tosyn_88]

Scare tactics all around, same thing happened with our referendum (denmark last year). Politicians promised eternal damnation if we voted no, but our people, just like the British are entirely exhausted with the European Union thinking they're anything more than a trade union.

They've overstepped their bounds again and again, and people will have no more of it.

That's actually the root cause of the problem. The fact that people assume it's just a trade union when it actually isn't just that. Yes trade is one major part, but financial merging is another major part and the free movement of factors of production. The last two effectively need political watch dog policies to ensure e every country is playing by the book. It's the reason why Greece is in a mess

 

[Nivash]

Because the UK could go the EU and claim the countries allowing these people to arrive in the UK are breaking EU law, as we could rightfully instantly send them back as they should of claimed asylum in the country they landed, they would have no right to claim asylum in the UK if they come through France et al. of course this means every human rights lawyer in the UK will have a fit, as this law is just ignored at will by just about everyone.... I was pointing out that there is no need to even have them come over

I'm assuming that by "law" you're referring to the Dublin Regulation which is currently in a de facto state of suspension due to the crisis. If the UK leaves the EU they would obviously not be covered by the regulation even if it does at some point become active again, so if the UK tries to use it as an excuse to summarily return asylum seekers to France, France can just tell them to get bent.

I'm not sure what the arrangement between the UK and France looks like, but it might very well be the case that it would cease to exist if the UK leaves the EU. That means France would have no reason to check anyone leaving the country and the refugees would end up at the border checkpoint in the UK instead and, as Cameron puts it, "bring the Jungle to the UK". Maybe there's some way to get a new agreement going, but who knows if that's possible with the damage to relations done by the UK bailing.

One a sidenote: I find it kind of pathetic that Cameron has to use scare tactics like this to win a referendum he himself proposed. He should have known better.

you would think, but why is it that France et al can just ignore migrants walking across their country.... the answer is of course because they know they want to get to the UK, as a non EU country we would have every right to tell the EU they all these migrants will be refused any sort of entry on to our border

You can't do that without flagrantly violating a large number of international agreements on asylum rights - not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself. If someone asks for asylum you need to process their claim, you can't just turn them away en masse like that. And it still wouldn't change anything: once they're on UK soil they'll get to stay until you either grant them asylum or deport them, you can't just shuttle them back across the channel because France won't accept them back in a million years.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

That EU law has always been dumb, especially since we don't have a unified border control

Refugees should be distributed depending on gdp and wealth, if that means the brits gotta take more or less so be it.

you would think, but why is it that France et al can just ignore migrants walking across their country.... the answer is of course because they know they want to get to the UK, as a non EU country we would have every right to tell the EU they all these migrants will be refused any sort of entry on to our border

what do you do when they are already on your territory though. You can't deport them to france.

 

[ClosingADoor]

you would think, but why is it that France et al can just ignore migrants walking across their country.... the answer is of course because they know they want to get to the UK, as a non EU country we would have every right to tell the EU they all these migrants will be refused any sort of entry on to our border

If they suddenly complain about that, then the EU can start to complain about Turkey, Macedonia, Serbia, etc doing the exact same thing. This stuff is ignored already everywhere. Don't see how the UK could enforce anything about it if the EU countries tell them to shut it.

 

[Walshicus]

Scare tactics all around, same thing happened with our referendum (denmark last year). Politicians promised eternal damnation if we voted no, but our people, just like the British are entirely exhausted with the European Union thinking they're anything more than a trade union.

They've overstepped their bounds again and again, and people will have no more of it.

Ninety nine times out of a hundred the things people don't like about the EU are things that tabloids have literally made up. That exhaustion is manufactured and we'll end up fucking ourselves over by voting out, just so a couple of media moguls can see their Victorian dreams of eroding workers rights come to fruition.

 

[KingSnake]

You will see how much difficult it will be to complain about EU law and EU behavior from outside.

Also EU is much more than a trade union and will never be back to just a trade union, because there is no real gain from that for most of the countries in EU. Too bad that the politician are shy about talking how the freedom of movement of capital and work has helped their financial supporters and the countries themselves in developing in the past tens of years.

 

[tomtom94]

The modern, post-racial Britain: "Keep the undesirables out!"

 

[travisbickle]

According to The Daily Mail camping of "economic migrants" has been happening since ~2010 anyway.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Ok, to everyone talking about EU law, this actually concerns a 2003 bi-lateral treaty between the UK and France called the 'Touquet Treaty'. It's not an EU instrument, and it wouldn't suddenly automatically end if we left the EU.

Of course, France could end the treaty. That's true whether or not we stay in the EU though. The French have been suggesting that for years, since they get a pretty shitty deal out of it.

The theory was that if you made it clear to illegal migrants that there was little chance of success, then fewer of them would try to make the journey. History, however, proved this not to be the case, hence Jungle.

 

[Coriolanus]

You will see how much difficult it will be to complain about EU law and EU behavior from outside.

Also EU is much more than a trade union and will never be back to just a trade union, because there is no real gain from that for most of the countries in EU. Too bad that the politician are shy about talking how the freedom of movement of capital and work has helped their financial supporters and the countries themselves in developing in the past tens of years.

They also dont talk about how the Euro harmed (and continues to harm) the less competent EU economies, fwiw.

 

[Jezbollah]

According to The Daily Mail camping of "economic migrants" has been happening since ~2010 anyway.

I'd be surprised if it was as recent as that...

 

[hodgy100]

This "economic migrant" terminology is such a grey term that it is liberally applied to any refugee / migrant that "i don't personally deem them worthy of entry" it's just coming across as coded xenophobia. If someone is fleeing their country whether it is from war or crippling poverty these people still require our help and while those in warzones should be a priority that doesn't mean that people coming from failed states where their government has failed to provide an environment where a person can effectively look after themselves, and their family, condemning individuals to extreme poverty don't require our assistance and or aid.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This "economic migrant" terminology is such a grey term that it is liberally applied to any refugee / migrant that "i don't personally deem them worthy of entry" it's just coming across as coded xenophobia. If someone is fleeing their country whether it is from war or crippling poverty these people still require our help and while those in warzones should be a priority that doesn't mean that people coming from failed states where their government has failed to provide an environment where a person can effectively look after themselves, and their family, condemning individuals to extreme poverty don't require our assistance and or aid.

If they are from war zones they can apply in the EU countries they already passed for asylum also - see also the ton of Syrian refugees accepted in different countries. They are safe there and can go through the process like everyone else. They want to go to Britain illegally to work there. Britain has no obligation to allow people in their country to work illegally.

 

[Alx]

Interesting use of language to describe the camp.

That's how it's commonly called over there : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_jungle
I don't know exactly who coined the phrase, but now it's just the common name of the camp, whatever one's opinion on the issue may be.

 

[hodgy100]

If they are from war zones they can apply in the EU countries they already passed for asylum also - see also the ton of Syrian refugees accepted in different countries. They are safe there and can go through the process like everyone else. They want to go to Britain illegally to work there. Britain has no obligation to allow people in their country to work illegally.

Then I guess what i'm asking is what the hell is an economic migrant? Because as I see it as people fleeing from extreme poverty which in my head are just as deserving of aid as others?

 

[Lagamorph]

This "economic migrant" terminology is such a grey term that it is liberally applied to any refugee / migrant that "i don't personally deem them worthy of entry" it's just coming across as coded xenophobia. If someone is fleeing their country whether it is from war or crippling poverty these people still require our help and while those in warzones should be a priority that doesn't mean that people coming from failed states where their government has failed to provide an environment where a person can effectively look after themselves, and their family, condemning individuals to extreme poverty don't require our assistance and or aid.

The term economic migrant is used (correctly) to apply to people in Calais because there is literally no other reason for them to want to claim asylum in the UK rather than France, or possibly a half dozen other EU countries they passed through to get there.
Even if you have family in the UK already, you should be applying for asylum in the first EU country in which you arrive, then legally travel there later.
Unless you're saying that people are fleeing France as refugees because its a warzone.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Then I guess what i'm asking is what the hell is an economic migrant? Because as I see it as people fleeing from extreme poverty which in my head are just as deserving of aid as others?

If poverty is the criteria to let people in, then that is about half the world unfortunately. Moving all those people is not actually solving that problem and is impossible to do.

An economic migrant is someone who is already safe from prosecution and war, but still would like to travel towards another country for economic reasons (illegal work for example or better benefits). Countries have every right to deny those people entry.

Since these people are already in France, they are safe, so traveling further would make them economic migrants.

 

[hodgy100]

The term economic migrant is used (correctly) to apply to people in Calais because there is literally no other reason for them to want to claim asylum in the UK rather than France, or possibly a half dozen other EU countries they passed through to get there.
Even if you have family in the UK already, you should be applying for asylum in the first EU country in which you arrive, then legally travel there later.
Unless you're saying that people are fleeing France as refugees because its a warzone.

Right Ok that makes sense. I've jsut seen it as a term used to describe those fleeing Syria.

The Calais camp is pretty frustrating to see it's a hive of poverty illness and a crime hotspot all because the UK and France seem to refuse to work together to actually deal with it. The UK won't take them because as you say they have no reason not to settle in France and France won't take them because they want to go to the UK.

If poverty is the criteria to let people in, then that is about half the world unfortunately. Moving all those people is not actually solving that problem and is impossible to do.

An economic migrant is someone who is already safe from prosecution and war, but still would like to travel towards another country for economic reasons (illegal work for example or better benefits). Countries have every right to deny those people entry.

Since these people are already in France, they are safe, so traveling further would make them economic migrants.

Right glad to see a sensible explanation of the term. Cheers for the clarification. I've been too used to seeing members of extreme anti-immigration groups use it to dismiss people who are actually in need. Now I know how the term is supposed to be used.

 

[Lagamorph]

It isn't a case of "France won't take them". It's a case of the people in the camp not applying for asylum in France in the first place. France can't take them if they don't/won't ask to be taken.

Yes the conditions in the camp are terrible, but it's suffering of their own making sadly. By applying for asylum in France they could escape those conditions. They continue to choose not to do so however.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Right Ok that makes sense. I've jsut seen it as a term used to describe those fleeing Syria.

The Calais camp is pretty frustrating to see it's a hive of poverty illness and a crime hotspot all because the UK and France seem to refuse to work together to actually deal with it. The UK won't take them because as you say they have no reason not to settle in France and France won't take them because they want to go to the UK.

I don't know if France not taking them is exactly true. These people don't want to stay in France and don't apply there for asylum (probably because at least a part of them know they will be denied and sent back home).

If they don't do that voluntarily, then France would have to come in, break the camps apart and force people. But nobody is really willing to deal with that mess and the criticism that will come after it.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Right Ok that makes sense. I've jsut seen it as a term used to describe those fleeing Syria.

The Calais camp is pretty frustrating to see it's a hive of poverty illness and a crime hotspot all because the UK and France seem to refuse to work together to actually deal with it. The UK won't take them because as you say they have no reason not to settle in France and France won't take them because they want to go to the UK.

Not true. They could settle in France if they wanted to. The French aren't actually preventing this.

Edit:

Whoops, sorry for piling on. You guys are quick!

 

[Joni]

I agree with Cameron. Why should we allow UK border checks on our soil if they are no longer in the EU? Also, if they did leave, there would need to be border controls that the border guards need to pass through each day.

Edit: Also, they want to go to the UK because it is easier to get work without a passport there.

 

[Lucreto]

I just see more of a chance of them crossing the English channel on a boat like in the Mediterranean.

Since UK won't be EU anymore France can let them into English waters and it's the UK problem then.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I agree with Cameron. Why should we allow UK border checks on our soil if they are no longer in the EU? Also, if they did leave, there would need to be border controls that the border guards need to pass through each day.

Because it's a bi-lateral treaty between the UK and France?

It allows so-called "Juxtaposed controls", i.e. France has their border guards in Dover and we have ours in Calais. If the French don't want that then fair enough, but it's not actually related to EU membership at all.

 

[hodgy100]

I don't know if France not taking them is exactly true. These people don't want to stay in France and don't apply there for asylum (probably because at least a part of them know they will be denied and sent back home).

If they don't do that voluntarily, then France would have to come in, break the camps apart and force people. But nobody is really willing to deal with that mess and the criticism that will come after it.

Not true. They could settle in France if they wanted to. The French aren't actually preventing this.

Edit:

Whoops, sorry for piling on. You guys are quick!

heh i don't feel piled on no worries!

hmm so we have a group of people that want to get into the UK but don't want to settle in france for whatever reason, part of that might be because they will be denied asylum and sent home, but we still have this huge camp of people jsut sitting there. It doesn't really seem like a problem with a solution that will appease everyone :/ is there a reason the two countries don't want to get together and sift through the mess? send people home that literally just do want to abuse systems then split the remaining 50/50? I realise that's a gross simplification of it but surely actually tackling the issue is better than just brushing it under the carpet and letting conditions get worse?

I just see more of a chance of them crossing the English channel on a boat like in the Mediterranean.

Since UK won't be EU anymore France can let them into English waters and it's the UK problem then.

It does feel like the issue is just going to be left until this happens and the issue "sorts itself out" through loss of life :/

 

[ClosingADoor]

heh i don't feel piled on no worries!

hmm so we have a group of people that want to get into the UK but don't want to settle in france for whatever reason, part of that might be because they will be denied asylum and sent home, but we still have this huge camp of people jsut sitting there. It doesn't really seem like a problem with a solution that will appease everyone :/ is there a reason the two countries don't want to get together and sift through the mess? send people home that literally just do want to abuse systems then split the remaining 50/50? I realise that's a gross simplification of it but surely actually tackling the issue is better than just brushing it under the carpet and letting conditions get worse?

I honestly have no clue. You'd think since they are there illegal and the conditions are unsafe, France would be in their full right to break the camp apart, transfer people to temporary holding and if they don't want to apply for asylum sent them back to their home country (of course if they can figure that one out, which is a problem of its own also).

 

[Lagamorph]

Many economic migrants will destroy their passports on arrival in France or the UK in order to make it incredibly difficult to deport them, since you can't prove where they're originally from.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Because it's a bi-lateral treaty between the UK and France?

It allows so-called "Juxtaposed controls", i.e. France has their border guards in Dover and we have ours in Calais. If the French don't want that then fair enough, but it's not actually related to EU membership at all.

I'm not sure France will have a lot of incentive to keep the bilateral treaty. I doubt whether they are fussed about having passport checks in the UK.
Either way I'm sure they would make the UK pay dearly for the privileged.

 

[hodgy100]

I honestly have no clue. You'd think since they are there illegal and the conditions are unsafe, France would be in their full right to break the camp apart, transfer people to temporary holding and if they don't want to apply for asylum sent them back to their home country (of course if they can figure that one out, which is a problem of its own also).

yeah getting into the system and actually processing these people is surely waaaaay better than just having this unorganised mess.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I honestly have no clue. You'd think since they are there illegal and the conditions are unsafe, France would be in their full right to break the camp apart, transfer people to temporary holding and if they don't want to apply for asylum sent them back to their home country (of course if they can figure that one out, which is a problem of its own also).

'Yes send me back home, I'm from the UK by the way but lost my passport.'

 

[suedester]

yeah getting into the system and actually processing these people is surely waaaaay better than just having this unorganised mess.

It's cheaper to have them sitting around in a camp.

 

[Joni]

Because it's a bi-lateral treaty between the UK and France?

It allows so-called "Juxtaposed controls", i.e. France has their border guards in Dover and we have ours in Calais. If the French don't want that then fair enough, but it's not actually related to EU membership at all.

France and Belgium could argue that the withdrawal from the European Union is a drastic change to the situation that they can unilaterally stop the treaty.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I'm not sure France will have a lot of incentive to keep the bilateral treaty. I doubt whether they are fussed about having passport checks in the UK.
Either way I'm sure they would make the UK pay dearly for the privileged.

They don't have a lot of incentive now. I'm not disagreeing with that, but the attempts to tie this to the EU referendum are a bit pathetic imo.

Similarly we have a tripartite treaty between UK, France and Belgium for the Chunnel. Schengen Area immigration checks take place in London, and in return we have border guards in Brussels. Will Belgium want to keep that after we leave the EU? Maybe?

The point is that these treaties were negotiated outside the EU, and so they don't live or die by the EU. Like any treaty, they only work if both sides agree to it. There's as much chance of France tearing it up while in the EU as there is if we leave.

Edit:

France and Belgium could argue that the withdrawal from the European Union is a drastic change to the situation that they can unilaterally stop the treaty.

Pathetic scaremongering. They can stop it any time anyway. What does our EU membership have to do with it?

 

[Lagamorph]

It's cheaper to have them sitting around in a camp.

Cost is nothing to do with it. They have intentionally chosen not to claim asylum. You can't force someone to claim asylum.

 

[spekkeh]

Because as I see it as people fleeing from extreme poverty which in my head are just as deserving of aid as others?

They don't deserve anything. There's no human right that says people are born to deserve wealth. They deserve to not be prosecuted without due process, for which we have asylum procedures.

 

[spekkeh]

Cost is nothing to do with it. They have intentionally chosen not to claim asylum. You can't force someone to claim asylum.

On the other hand they are clearly in the country illegally. And you can forcibly extradite illegals.

 

[anonymous_abc]

They don't have a lot of incentive now. I'm not disagreeing with that, but the attempts to tie this to the EU referendum are a bit pathetic imo.

Similarly we have a tripartite treaty between UK, France and Belgium for the Chunnel. Schengen Area immigration checks take place in London, and in return we have border guards in Brussels. Will Belgium want to keep that after we leave the EU? Maybe?

The point is that these treaties were negotiated outside the EU, and so they don't live or die by the EU. Like any treaty, they only work if both sides agree to it. There's as much chance of France tearing it up while in the EU as there is if we leave.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm sure the UK leaving the EU would incentivise France to look into this treaty (and probably others) very carefully.

 

[Nivash]

I honestly have no clue. You'd think since they are there illegal and the conditions are unsafe, France would be in their full right to break the camp apart, transfer people to temporary holding and if they don't want to apply for asylum sent them back to their home country (of course if they can figure that one out, which is a problem of its own also).

My guess is that they France don't consider them to be "their" refugees. If they do break up the camp and force them to apply they will have to do it in France - the UK won't lift a finger. So the effect will be that France will suddenly have to take care of all of these people who don't even want to stay in France, that will be expensive no matter what outcome the application process arrives at. It's might simply be easier to ignore them.

So yeah, the obvious solution would be for the UK and France to stop ignoring the problem and deal with it in a rational way. But with neither wanting to take care of the refugees, they're deadlocked and stuck at blaming each other. This seems to be a theme in general when it comes to how Europe deals with the refugees, sadly.

On the other hand they are clearly in the country illegally. And you can forcibly extradite illegals.

That line of thought works only to the point where they apply for asylum. And even if they don't, you're faced with the possibility that their home countries might not take them back or that they will simply find their way back in short order anyway, making all the expensive expulsion procedures pointless.

 

[Joni]

On the other hand they are clearly in the country illegally. And you can forcibly extradite illegals.

It is however not very popular to do so, even Sarkozy got a lot of criticism for it. A socialist would be even less likely to do it, as the people typically opposing these extraditions are socialists.

 

[Lagamorph]

On the other hand they are clearly in the country illegally. And you can forcibly extradite illegals.

It is however not very popular to do so, even Sarkozy got a lot of criticism for it. A socialist would be even less likely to do it, as the people typically opposing these extraditions are socialists.

And there's the issue of actually proving where they're from to deport them. If they've destroyed their passport then you're totally reliant on them telling you where they're from, which an economic migrant will absolutely not do.


Ultimately, Cameron is right. France will have little interest in maintaining the current treaty if the UK leaves the EU, so the issue will move to the UK side of the border.