Calais mayor wants to send migrants to Britain

[grandvizier1006]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13402...t-camps-moved-to-the-uk-but-theres-no-chance/

Sounds childish to me. Like some sort of punishment for the UK voting to leave the EU.

 

[brinny]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13402...t-camps-moved-to-the-uk-but-theres-no-chance/

Sounds childish to me. Like some sort of punishment for the UK voting to leave the EU.

LOL!

Seriously?

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, the person quoted at the end is right - the particular France/UK deal was privately negotiated and is not an EU treaty. Basically it puts the British border on the French side of the channel, hence why there is a pile-up of migrants in Calais.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A friend of mine voted Remain, but is now glad we voted Leave after seeing the way our supposed 'friends' in Europe have reacted to our decision.

 

[Genersis]

Well, if they're in the UK, they're no longer an EU problem, right? It's not like non-EU countries can use the Dublin Convention.

They have parties and politicians scapegoating refugees/migrants of their own to worry about.

 

[mark46]

Well, if they're in the UK, they're no longer an EU problem, right? It's not like non-EU countries can use the Dublin Convention.

They have parties and politicians scapegoating refugees/migrants of their own to worry about.

You do know that the UK is in the EU for more than 2 more years, and subject to their laws and regulations until they leave?

 

[grandvizier1006]

You do know that the UK is in the EU for more than 2 more years, and subject to their laws and regulations until they leave?

That's what I was thinking. Why is everyone freaking out about the UK leaving the EU if they haven't really done so yet?

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

Very childish. The Brits made their decision, why punish them for it? The EU is out of control

 

[Oafman]

The French are doing us a big favour by allowing us to set up our border controls in France.

They're well within their rights to change their minds, and if they do, we should thank them for the time they have done this, rather than being so entitled that we moan at them for it.

 

[Genersis]

You do know that the UK is in the EU for more than 2 more years, and subject to their laws and regulations until they leave?

Yeah, but unlike the UK, they're thinking about consequences in advance.

 

[Jack of Spades]

That's what I was thinking. Why is everyone freaking out about the UK leaving the EU if they haven't really done so yet?

For businesses in the UK doing trade in the EU zone, if there's no trade deal in two years and the border "closes", that means they'll have to leave the UK. When you gotta ship your entire business, or large parts of it to another country, it costs a lot of money and causes a lot of difficulties. And it's guaranteed that in such atmosphere, when nobody knows will there be a deal or not, nobody wants to make further investments in the UK, because they might end up having to leave the UK in two years.

Imagine you build a factory in Texas, and then somebody says that in two years you might or might not have to move it out to some other state, but we don't know yet, we will see. Does that make you willing to build another factory there when you might have to abandon it just when it's finished?

It means there are no new jobs because everyone's either playing it safe and leaving already, or waiting to see what happens next before making any further investments.

This is naturally not true for hot dog stands etc. businesses which operate in UK alone, but plenty of big companies operate more or less in the EU zone, and not just in their home country.

TL;DR: Economics don't like political uncertainty.

 

[Jack of Spades]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13402...t-camps-moved-to-the-uk-but-theres-no-chance/

Sounds childish to me. Like some sort of punishment for the UK voting to leave the EU.

France is keeping UK immigrants in it's own territory. Now that UK has told France that the UK no longer wants to be BFFs with the Europe, some people in France are saying "maybe we shouldn't be BFFs then?". Is that really so childish? Besides, it was just a mayor speaking, not French government.

The French are doing us a big favour by allowing us to set up our border controls in France.

They're well within their rights to change their minds, and if they do, we should thank them for the time they have done this, rather than being so entitled that we moan at them for it.

This is a fine example of how isolationism can destroy useful co-operation and create hostility, imo. First the immigrants are the enemies, then France is. 30's here we come!

 

[grandvizier1006]

For businesses in the UK doing trade in the EU zone, if there's no trade deal in two years and the border "closes", that means they'll have to leave the UK. When you gotta ship your entire business, or large parts of it to another country, it costs a lot of money and causes a lot of difficulties. And it's guaranteed that in such atmosphere, when nobody knows will there be a deal or not, nobody wants to make further investments in the UK, because they might end up having to leave the UK in two years.

Imagine you build a factory in Texas, and then somebody says that in two years you might or might not have to move it out to some other state, but we don't know yet, we will see. Does that make you willing to build another factory there when you might have to abandon it just when it's finished?

It means there are no new jobs because everyone's either playing it safe and leaving already, or waiting to see what happens next before making any further investments.

This is naturally not true for hot dog stands etc. businesses which operate in UK alone, but plenty of big companies operate more or less in the EU zone, and not just in their home country.

TL;DR: Economics don't like political uncertainty.

What I don't understand is why they need a trade deal, or why they can't keep the current ones. I understand what you're saying, but it seems like the EU wants to treat the UK like some country they've never heard of. I don't see why the UK can't just re-establish current trade deals once it leaves the EU. I know that would require the EU's cooperation, but I feel like realistically, there's no good reason for a nation like a Germany to say no to any agreement other than "they betrayed us!"

Also, Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU. They seem to be doing just fine. Why is that?

 

[mark46]

What I don't understand is why they need a trade deal, or why they can't keep the current ones. I understand what you're saying, but it seems like the EU wants to treat the UK like some country they've never heard of. I don't see why the UK can't just re-establish current trade deals once it leaves the EU. I know that would require the EU's cooperation, but I feel like realistically, there's no good reason for a nation like a Germany to say no to any agreement other than "they betrayed us!"

Also, Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU. They seem to be doing just fine. Why is that?

Any deal with the EU would take a unanimous vote of the EU members. That will NOT come if the UK is given a great deal. It is quite possible that 100% of the EU will not be able to agree on any deal at all. And why SHOULD the EU give the UK a great deal? The UK presently chooses which part of the EU it wants to accept (e.g. it doesn't accept the euro). The EU made made many concessions to Cameron in the recent negotiations, concessions that would aha taken place if the UK stayed. All of these deal for UK as a member are now off table. There is no reason to believe that 100% of the EU will agree to now give the UK a BETTER deal.

 

[Jack of Spades]

First of all, I'm not an expert on the topic, so if somebody finds something that's not correct in my post, please note and I'll fix it. But let's try with the little I know:

What I don't understand is why they need a trade deal, or why they can't keep the current ones.

Because UK doesn't want the current one, which is "the four freedoms", meaning free movement of goods, capital, labor and services in the single market (EU countries + some special cases, such as Norway which has made a deal to be part of the single market, without being a EU member) area.

I am sure EU would offer this deal for UK, if UK wants to accept it. But the UK apparently doesn't want to have the free movement of people (labor) so it's rejecting the current deal.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like the EU wants to treat the UK like some country they've never heard of. I don't see why the UK can't just re-establish current trade deals once it leaves the EU.

Previous answer + if Britain was given a special deal, having access to the single market, without having to accept the free movement of the people, this would mean that EU member countries have a worse deal than Britain has. Free market (like the single market) is about both freedom and a risk. Britain would have the freedom without the risk.

Who wants to be in a union which offers better deals for outsiders than for it's own members? Every EU country would want out of EU after that. It would be a suicide for the union to give Britain "single market a la carte".

I know that would require the EU's cooperation, but I feel like realistically, there's no good reason for a nation like a Germany to say no to any agreement other than "they betrayed us!"

Yes there are other reasons. They don't want to destroy the EU by giving Britain a better deal than the members have, it would be a suicide move for the EU. Would you like US to give more benefits, social security and freedoms for all Brazilian citizens than for the US citizens?

Also, Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU. They seem to be doing just fine. Why is that?

I know Norway has made a deal which includes it in the single market, which means it accepts the four freedoms. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but I suspect the position is somewhat similar. They're pretty close to being members in economic sense. I repeat, I am pretty sure UK could have the same or similar deal Norway has, if it just takes it.

 

[Rhamiel]

if france does not want the migrants in Calais, they can choose to deport them to their home country

then if the UK chooses to take any more migrants, they will have to work out where they want to vet them

France was doing the UK a huge favor, and part of the reason they did that is because the idea is "oh we are all part of the EU, what helps one helps all!"
well now the UK is out of the EU
what does France gain from having this "jungle" on their soil?

 

[Dave RP]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13402...t-camps-moved-to-the-uk-but-theres-no-chance/

Sounds childish to me. Like some sort of punishment for the UK voting to leave the EU.

There is a bilateral agreement in place which has nothing to do with the EU, the UK has a border post on the French side and the French have a border post on the UK side.

What i fail to understand is that the Eu and international law states that Asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. France is a safe country and these are illegal immigrants, the French should arrest and deport them, or process an asylum application and I don't understand why they allow this situation to develop and get worse.

This should be unaffected by the UK's decision to leave the EU, which will take years in any event.

 

[Dave RP]

First of all, I'm not an expert on the topic, so if somebody finds something that's not correct in my post, please note and I'll fix it. But let's try with the little I know:



Because UK doesn't want the current one, which is "the four freedoms", meaning free movement of goods, capital, labor and services in the single market (EU countries + some special cases, such as Norway which has made a deal to be part of the single market, without being a EU member) area.

I am sure EU would offer this deal for UK, if UK wants to accept it. But the UK apparently doesn't want to have the free movement of people (labor) so it's rejecting the current deal.



Previous answer + if Britain was given a special deal, having access to the single market, without having to accept the free movement of the people, this would mean that EU member countries have a worse deal than Britain has. Free market (like the single market) is about both freedom and a risk. Britain would have the freedom without the risk.

Who wants to be in a union which offers better deals for outsiders than for it's own members? Every EU country would want out of EU after that. It would be a suicide for the union to give Britain "single market a la carte".



Yes there are other reasons. They don't want to destroy the EU by giving Britain a better deal than the members have, it would be a suicide move for the EU. Would you like US to give more benefits, social security and freedoms for all Brazilian citizens than for the US citizens?



I know Norway has made a deal which includes it in the single market, which means it accepts the four freedoms. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but I suspect the position is somewhat similar. They're pretty close to being members in economic sense. I repeat, I am pretty sure UK could have the same or similar deal Norway has, if it just takes it.

Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) where they have to abide by all EU rules in terms of trade and pay into the EU budget, in return for which they are members of the Single Market. They can then set their own rules on, for example fishing quotas (which was an issue in the referendum debate) and are free to negotiate trade deals with anyone they want to outside of the EU.

Personally that's the deal I hope we go for but I think the free movement of people will not be acceptable to the ruling Tory party.

If I were a betting man I would bet that the deal we end up with will be a form of qualified membership of the EEA, where there are some theoretical controls on freedom of movement but in reality there will be no significant change.

 

[Oafman]

This should be unaffected by the UK's decision to leave the EU

The only change is that there is an EU treaty which permits member states to return asylum seekers to the first safe EU country they set foot in. When we are no longer part of that treaty, we lose that right.

But yeah, the Le Touquet accords are not an EU thing.