Sure, but you can remove them if you wanted to. Cost is everything to do with it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EU referendum: PM (David Cameron) says Brexit could bring Calais 'Jungle' to UK
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
- Status
Sure, but you can remove them if you wanted to. Cost is everything to do with it.
ugh of course money is at the bottom of it :/
which is what makes this frustrating, it's like the two governments are cutting off their nose to spite their face :/
Yes, determining where they are from and getting their own countries to accept them back is extremely costly, so ultimately it is a matter of cost. Legally it's no problem.
The problem is the UK government would be under huge political pressure just to close Calais or start sending away ships and trucks.
Its stuff like this that does not really ring true; and its also clear if they were in the UK they would likely be a detainment centre rather than the ridiculous French situation where they run around freely and live in a way not good for themselves or others. Cam is just realising his 'renegotiation' went terribly but the fact is many anti-EU UKers will probably just say shut the port and tunnels; which then places the pressure on France - with the UK probably looking other (Belgium/Denmark) to create a secure Port - less efficient that Northern France but not so much if it stops the mess of Northern Frances immigration.
Denmark would make a lot of sense as they could secure their Southern Border and thus secure.
This is all along way of saying - France does not take port security for the sake of British EU membership.
anonymous_abc
Member
Dave never wanted to leave. He's just getting nervous about the fact that it might happen after all.
They would never close the border, the Chunnel is a lifeline for the U.K. In 2015, it allowed the transport of no less than 1.5 million trucks, 20 million passengers and 2500 freight trains. Closing it would devastate the U.K. economy. You couldn't do more economic damage if you nuked the City of London (not London London, the other London). The French wouldn't hurt nearly as much - the Chunnel just lets them get to the U.K.; it lets the U.K. get to the entire continent. Attempting to compensate this by inefficient transport by ship is pure idiocy. Even if you can build up the capacity it would likely take years to get the facilities in place and by that time, the U.K. economy will be near collapse.
As for detainment camps: the French could do that too. They just have no reason to, just like the U.K. will have no reason to build them in the U.K. If you put them in camps you engage with them and that will allow them do apply for asylum, something the Jungle exists to avoid.
Exactly. The UK Government would view a detainment centre as a 'pull factor', and a costly one at that, as opposed to forcing migrants to live in tents. Make them live in really terrible conditions and keep preventing them from reaching their goal, and apparently they'll stop coming.
That was the aim at least.
That was the aim at least.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I agree that the border closing is a crazy fantasy, as is sending ferries to Denmark. That's a loooooooot further, you know?
However, the second point I think is interesting. In fact, if you think about it the whole premise of the thread is ridiculous anyway. The Jungle 'coming to the UK'??
Why on earth would these migrants be living in a similar camp in south east England? Hypothetically if France said "Fuck it, put as many clandestines on these trucks as you can fit", once they get to the UK they got what they want.
They're not going to hang around Dover. They'll go to a city to seek work or they'll reunite with their family.
I just assumed that Cameron was implying that they will build some kind of border fence in Folkestone instead, to recreate the circumstances that spawned the Jungle. Now that I think about it I'm not sure that's even possible though. U.K. soil is U.K. soil after all. So you're probably right, the entire premise is absurd.
There are other means of transport into the UK for goods and people than Northern France. That's just a fact. Its by far the most efficient and has already been invested in - but if you honestly believe the UK public would support the refugee issues seen in France taking place in the UK then you are out of touch - fact is the UK public are horrified even seeing whats going on in France right now.
The public will not support a government who allows what we are seeing in France to happen in the UK, not to mention the South of Britain is the most politically influential.
Most of them are not refugees. The jungle is there because if they claim asylum there they cannot claim it in the UK. The UK will build them to detain people under review - and basically turn it into a deportation industry. The main issue will be trouble at these camps - which will drive political moves to put pressure on France to take them on their side.
Again - this is not 'what will happen'; this is 'why what Cam says will not happen'. This is on par with the 'there will be wired fence across the Scottish border' - it makes little sense in context and is the weaker aspects of project fear.
Well; the issue is there will be a border security here. They would not be allowed passed. If they were moving freely through the rest of the UK? The idea the border would remain open is absurd. If the UK leaves Europe then there will be a big security operation on one side of the border. Even Europeans will not move freely; the 'refugees' will just be told to go back.
It was always a carrot to keep the overtly racist parts of the conservative party from defecting to ukip and the bnp or combat 18 or whatever else the far right are labelling themselves these days.
The real power in the Tory party, backers in global finance, know full well that their gravy train only keeps running with easy access to European capital from their own little wild west in the City. So they want in.
It is a problem legally though. You can't determine where they're from if they've destroyed their passport and give you a false name. No amount of money is going to get around that. And it's illegal to just deport them somewhere you think they might be from with no actual documentation.
What other means of transport? By sea? We're not talking about degrees of efficiency here, but leagues. Diverting freight to Denmark would make the journey many times longer and exponentially more expensive while requiring massive investment in both ships and port infrastructure. You would need at least 80 massive container ships just to replace the trucks, for a cost of over $15 billion, and most likely even more than that to compensate for the less efficient route and loading. Building up the ports in Denmark to handle all this load would take years and cost untold billions more. Even beside the increased cost to the state you will likely see a large number of U.K. companies be forced into bankruptcy because they were reliant on the efficient transports to France to stay in business. All for a much slower way to reach Europe's major markets in France, Spain and Germany just to avoid a few thousand immigrants a year (the Jungle held 1000 to 6000 immigrants in 2015)
The British people must really hate immigrants to put up with all that.
Agent Gibbs
Member
I think his point is scaremongering and misguided, and certainly a worst case scenario.............but i want to stay in the EU, so i think i'm okay with this if it scares us into staying
dapperbandit
Banned
Wouldn't you rather someone actually presented a case for why staying in the EU is a good thing instead of threatening us with brown people?
QuicheFontaine
Member
gutter_trash
Banned
you guys do realize that London is one hell of an over-populated city, right?
Daffy Duck
Member
This is only the start, they'll pull the exact same scare tactics they employed when Scotland was voting for Independence.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Part of me kind of wants a Brexit just to spite the Tories. Our economy would tank and they'd be forever known as the party that destroyed British relevance on a global scale.
Only problem is that the economy would be far too fucked for any other party to put their own non-austerity policies into place. So it's sort of lose lose.
Only problem is that the economy would be far too fucked for any other party to put their own non-austerity policies into place. So it's sort of lose lose.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I don't mind "Brexit". It somehow reminds me of Weetabix.
"Grexit" is a real blight though.
We've had two decades or more of the Right Wing Press's scaremongering and actual lies against Europe. It's a bit rich of the Right to be complaining now.
czech please
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ooh, nice one. You should copyright it before the Mail steals it.
dapperbandit
Banned
I keep losing track of who the supervillains in this story are, the EU, the Right Wing Press, David Cameron or the Eurosceptics? Obviously the refugees fleeing war torn France don't apply.
If the Euroseptics are the bad guys, why is David Cameron, who wants us to stay, using immigrants as a threat? Doesn't that make him the bad guy? How can both sides of the question be bad guys!?
It's almost like the issue more complex than STAY = SMILEY FACE / LEAVE = FROWNY FACE
We'd also lose Scotland. Maybe even Wales. And the Tories would still win the next election.
Germany gained a LOT. Other countries ? Not really.
Agent Gibbs
Member
I would, but in the same breath i think there are people out there who despite the benefits would negate any reasoned debate with (and to use your terminology) 'but if we stay we give money to brown people and let them in blah blah blah', so perhaps the only way to get through to the extremely racist and/or short sighted/deluded/media frenzied, is perhaps to fight fire with fire so to speak - stoke their racism fear in favour of the 'good' side?
I don't know, fear plays a big part in conservatives tactics, look at the election and how stoking fears of an SNP/Labour coalition swung the election and voters their way
Generally i think people are smarter than this and will see through the bullshit, i just feel this tactic, as much as it goes against my wishes for educating people, is a dirty trick in the pro Europe favour, which i could live with it think?
I'm going to quote from this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/11/whats-eu-ever-done-us
"What did the EEC/EU ever do for us? Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade; structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping; a recycling culture; cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling; a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; better product safety; single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; break up of monopolies; Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market; price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone; freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; access to European health services; labour protection and enhanced social welfare; smoke-free workplaces; equal pay legislation; holiday entitlement; the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; strongest wildlife protection in the world; improved animal welfare in food production; EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; EU representation in international forums; bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; European arrest warrant; cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital."
This is really the tip of the iceberg. Being from Ireland, access to the EU was instrumental in taking us from a Church-dominated, ignorant afterthought to a strong, largely liberal and economically strong country. The treatment of Greece in negotiations over the bailout doesn't undo half a century of excellent work.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Nope. Sorry to pick on one thing (but this is the only one I know anything about), but that's not true.
There's no pan-European patent. There's a European Patent Office that allows a single application to be prosecuted through to grant, but on allowance that patent has to be validated in each respective country effectively as a national patent.
The EPO was formed by the European Patent Convention, a multi-lateral treaty not an EU instrument. The EPC has plenty of non-EU signatories (e.g. Serbia, Albania, Turkey), as well as validation agreements with countries not even in Europe (e.g. Morocco).
anonymous_abc
Member
This is just ridiculous. Every country in the EU has gained tremendously from it. Or do you think they were all tricked by Berlin to join the club.
We could go through every country one by one listing things that were accomplished as a result of EU membership. Be it huge infrastructure measurements, research funding, agricultural subsidies, border free trade or any number of other things.
Yes but, apart from providing 57% of our trade; structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping; a recycling culture; cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling; a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; better product safety; single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; break up of monopolies; Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market; price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone; freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; access to European health services; labour protection and enhanced social welfare; smoke-free workplaces; equal pay legislation; holiday entitlement; the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; strongest wildlife protection in the world; improved animal welfare in food production; EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; EU representation in international forums; bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; European arrest warrant; cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital, what has the EU ever done for us?!
Bananajama
Banned
Pure scare tactics from Cameron
Every country in EU has gained one way or another. That's why it exists. Now, politicians might be shy in stating the gains when they are not really usable in election campaigns. Like freedom of movement for the capital which benefited a lot countries like Austria for example or how the freedom of movement for the workforce released a lot of the pressure put by freedom of movement of capital and free trade into Eastern European countries. Southern Europe (and not only) benefited from a lot of structural funds. And so on.
anonymous_abc
Member
Not really. Just because it's an unpleasant, but very likely, scenario doesn't make it a 'scare tactic'.
QuicheFontaine
Member
It definitely is a scare tactic. I've already pointed out how the whole premise of the thread is ridiculous, but I'll do it again:
Why does the Jungle even exist in Calais?
Because the people there want to get into the UK illegally. They don't want to claim asylum in France (although they could do that), and the French are basically ignoring them.
If these people got into the UK, they would then claim asylum. They got to where they want to be! They aren't going to continue living near the port in a tent.
Cameron is trying to paint a picture of a huge tent village outside of Dover. "Have you seen that horrible camp in Calais? That'll be over here if you vote 'Leave'!". But this scenario would never happen. That's, like, the definition of a scare tactic.
The only reason for a Jungle on our side would be if there were asylum seekers in the UK trying to reach France, refusing to apply in the UK, and the British authorities were ignoring the problem.
There are very few of those for various reasons, mainly that the UK is rarely the first point of entry for asylum seekers (just due to geography), and usually their destination is the UK anyway.
Shockingly, France confirms it wouldn't feel the need to uphold treaties if someone breaks them first.
http://news.sky.com/story/1652394/brexit-could-bring-calais-jungle-to-britain
http://news.sky.com/story/1652394/brexit-could-bring-calais-jungle-to-britain
a bit dramatic, but on the nose.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked