Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Basil Jet
wrote in :

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

No, but the Brexit campaigners were suggesting (wrongly, of course) that
Turkey was soon join the EU, and that Arab refugees in Germany would soon
be granted citizenship, and would then be able to freely move to the UK.

In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:31:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

No reason it should. The le touquet agreement is nothing to do with the EU.

--
Spud

On 30/06/16 17:02, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:31:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

No reason it should. The le touquet agreement is nothing to do with the EU.


I thought that Boris' opposite number in Calais announced that he was
going to charter a ship to bring them all to the UK?

Mind you I don't think that any company or individual would want to foot
the changes in the UK for importing so many illegal immigrants.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:09:37 +0100
Martin Coffee wrote:
On 30/06/16 17:02, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:31:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

No reason it should. The le touquet agreement is nothing to do with the EU.


I thought that Boris' opposite number in Calais announced that he was
going to charter a ship to bring them all to the UK?

The mayor of calais seems to spend her life complaining about the UK. Perhaps
she should complain to her own government to do their damn job and process
these people instead of allowing mass vagrancy.

--
Spud

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 08:30:17 +0000 (UTC), d put finger to
keyboard and typed:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:09:37 +0100
Martin Coffee wrote:

I thought that Boris' opposite number in Calais announced that he was
going to charter a ship to bring them all to the UK?

The mayor of calais seems to spend her life complaining about the UK. Perhaps
she should complain to her own government to do their damn job and process
these people instead of allowing mass vagrancy.

The Mayor of Calais has a valid argument that the Touquet agreement has
imposed a disproportional burden on her town as a result of France's
inability to intercept illegal migrants before they get there. It is not
difficult to have sympathy with her position.

However, the value to France as a whole of the agreement, and the fact that
Calais is just one of many Channel port towns implementing it, means that
it's unlikely to be unilaterally rescinded by France.

It is, though, a convenient bogeyman with which to threaten the UK,
particularly by French politicians who want to deflect attention from the
fact that the underlying problem is France's own inability to handle
illegal migrants.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

"Martin Coffee" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/16 17:02, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:31:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

No reason it should. The le touquet agreement is nothing to do with the
EU.


I thought that Boris' opposite number in Calais announced that he was
going to charter a ship to bring them all to the UK?

look forward to him being slapped with a 5 grand fine for each one and
legally enforceable demands to take them back again at his own expense

tim

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:31:41PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

The reason that it's in Calais is that the people there want to be close
to the UK so as to make it easier to get to the UK.

In the hypothetical situation of the French just opening the gates and
letting them through, there would be no reason for them to want to stay
in Kent. And our government has a policy of dispersing migrants around
the country and not just requiring that they stay next to the port they
entered through.

It is therefore clear that any suggestion of "the jungle" being
replicated in Kent is, to be blunt, ********, unless it is populated by
British people desperate to flee to France.

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt

In message , at 14:49:51
on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK, and even whether the Sangette camp will
eventually be relocated to somewhere on the Kent coast.

The reason that it's in Calais is that the people there want to be close
to the UK so as to make it easier to get to the UK.

In the hypothetical situation of the French just opening the gates and
letting them through, there would be no reason for them to want to stay
in Kent. And our government has a policy of dispersing migrants around
the country and not just requiring that they stay next to the port they
entered through.

It is therefore clear that any suggestion of "the jungle" being
replicated in Kent is, to be blunt, ********, unless it is populated by
British people desperate to flee to France.

If there were many thousands, I think they'd be detained in specific
locations. We have a precedent in Oakington (now closed).

Perhaps they wouldn't be in Kent, but there have been suggestions in the
past that ships might be used, and Kent is on the coast...
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:15:45 +0200
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Roland Perry
wrote in news
In message , at 17:13:39 on Thu, 30 Jun
2016, Wolfgang Schwanke remarked:

Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving
to London

Brexit has no effect on migration from outside the EU.

It does, because it affects how many of the people camped at Sangette
(who are non-EU) get to the UK

They are illegal on both sides of the Channel already, and the UK has
its own immigration controls in place already. Brexit won't change
anything there. Something else is apparently not working, that won't be
fixed by leaving the EU.

Well hopefully once the law is re-adjusted and we no longer have to cowtow to
that ****ing human rights act then once these illegals are found they can be
booted out ASAP instead of parasite lawyers dragging the process out for years
with some variation on right to family life or BS a`bout being tortured if
they're sent back.

--
Spud