France will let thousands of migrants, refugees enter UK if UK leaves the EU

AMIENS, France/LONDON (Reuters) - France warned Britain on Thursday it would end border controls and let thousands of migrants move on to its neighbor if British voters backed leaving the European Union.

French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron also said France would open its arms to British-based banks wanting to stay in the bloc, in comments published just before Prime Minister David Cameron met President Francois Hollande at an Anglo-French security summit.

Cameron has made protecting security a key argument in his campaign to keep Britain in the European Union in a referendum on June 23 and suggested last month that refugees living in a camp in the French town of Calais could flock to England if British voters decided to leave.

"The day this relationship unravels, migrants will no longer be in Calais," Macron told the Financial Times, adding that rules allowing British-based banks to operate across the EU would be lost.

http://news.yahoo.com/britain-leaves-eu-france-says-let-migrants-britain-081056648--sector.html

fair enough
then if it treats them badly EU can attack the UK because of the crimes against Humanity and the fact it has weapons of Mass Destruction and Make the Uk part of the EU.

Still talking bollocks I see!

When they see our gunboats they will turn back.

veya_victaous wrote:fair enough
then if it treats them badly EU can attack the UK because of the crimes against Humanity and the fact it has weapons of Mass Destruction and Make the Uk part of the EU.

has it really got to this ^^^^^^


well here's hoping for a nice "wet winter"

followed by a nice hot summer for you ........

may you live in interesting times Veya....

"I don't want to paint a catastrophic picture, but there will be consequences including for people. It won't call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the United Kingdom. But it will have consequences including in terms of dealing with migration."

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

Raggamuffin wrote:

"I don't want to paint a catastrophic picture, but there will be consequences including for people. It won't call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the United Kingdom. But it will have consequences including in terms of dealing with migration."

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

But Rags, France has the upper hand being part of the EU, thus being both economically stronger, without the UK having by leaving if they did, any trade agreements. The UK is always going to be at a disadvantage until any of these policies have been agreed. This is why France can easily apply this pressure to the UK as there is nothing the UK can do about this. If the UK tried to single out France, they would face the entire EU, so again the UK is at a disadvantage. This is what people are not understanding in any of this.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

But Rags, France has the upper hand being part of the EU, thus being both economically stronger, without the UK having by leaving if they did, any trade agreements. The UK is always going to be at a disadvantage until any of these policies have been agreed. This is why France can easily apply this pressure to the UK as there is nothing the UK can do about this. If the UK tried to single out France, they would face the entire EU, so again the UK is at a disadvantage. This is what people are not understanding in any of this.

I agree that they would have the upper hand because these immigrants want to come to the UK - they don't want to go to France from the UK. It's a matter of geography really.

However, I think it's a malicious move, and that will cause a strain in the relationship.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But Rags, France has the upper hand being part of the EU, thus being both economically stronger, without the UK having by leaving if they did, any trade agreements. The UK is always going to be at a disadvantage until any of these policies have been agreed. This is why France can easily apply this pressure to the UK as there is nothing the UK can do about this. If the UK tried to single out France, they would face the entire EU, so again the UK is at a disadvantage. This is what people are not understanding in any of this.

I agree that they would have the upper hand because these immigrants want to come to the UK - they don't want to go to France from the UK. It's a matter of geography really.

However, I think it's a malicious move, and that will cause a strain in the relationship.

Indeed it is malicious, but this is just France, think what others will do if the UK leaves
People really have not grasped how the EU holds all the aces here.

first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

Lord Foul wrote:first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

I've always thought that tunnel was more trouble than it's worth, but I suppose it's important to a lot of other people.

Lord Foul wrote:first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

Economically a disaster if we did that Victor

If the EU has THAT attitude didge, perhaps we are right to question whether we want to be part of it since it clearly shows a spiteful attitude towards us....

in or out we will be shat on....so we may as well be out ...

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

Economically a disaster if we did that Victor

not if we can persuade the european commisiojn members to inspect it DURING the event....from somewhere in the middle

So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Economically a disaster if we did that Victor

not if we can persuade the european commisiojn members to inspect it DURING the event....from somewhere in the middle

Interesting, I did not think of that

Raggamuffin wrote:

"I don't want to paint a catastrophic picture, but there will be consequences including for people. It won't call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the United Kingdom. But it will have consequences including in terms of dealing with migration."

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

There has always been an underlying hostility between France and Britain, I feel.   It's veiled but it's there.  Historically, the two nations have never really seen eye to eye and France has been at war with England and went against Britain to side with America and to encourage war with Spain.  We nearly went to war again in the 19th Century over Africa.  The second world war brought France and Britain together until Charles  de Gaulle nearly cocked it all up by trying to thwart Britain's entry into what would become the EEC.    I don't believe they like us that much and that relations could very easily be breached.  Now they are threatening us with this.

Raggamuffin wrote:So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

If the tunnel is closed off, how would they get in?   And if they did get through the tunnel, they should be turned back at the other end.   The very fact that France is stamping its trotters over this goes to show they really don't give a fuck about Britain.  Send them to Germany.  We're not the ones who offered an open arms policy.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

If the tunnel is closed off, how would they get in?   And if they did get through the tunnel, they should be turned back at the other end.   The very fact that France is stamping its trotters over this goes to show they really don't give a fuck about Britain.  Send them to Germany.  We're not the ones who offered an open arms policy.

Again that would economically be a disaster for the UK to shut the tunnel.

Lord Foul wrote:If the EU has THAT attitude didge, perhaps we are right to question whether we want to be part of it since it clearly shows a spiteful attitude towards us....

in or out we will be shat on....so we may as well be out ...

I agree.  In fact, if we stay in, I reckon the gloating will begin.

Raggamuffin wrote:So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

Good point.
You will not like this.

FORCE of some kind would be the only thing we could do.
Blocking the Chunnel is the obvious thing to do.

What about ferry and aircraft, even small Dunkirk like craft, we would have to be brutal with them also.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

If the tunnel is closed off, how would they get in?   And if they did get through the tunnel, they should be turned back at the other end.   The very fact that France is stamping its trotters over this goes to show they really don't give a fuck about Britain.  Send them to Germany.  We're not the ones who offered an open arms policy.

We won't close the tunnel - there's too much invested in it, and it's important for the economy.

Let's say a load arrived in the UK and claim asylum. They can't just put them on the next train back can they?

Unless the UK really toughened up its stance on asylum, we'd be obliged to take them in.

Raggamuffin wrote:

"I don't want to paint a catastrophic picture, but there will be consequences including for people. It won't call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the United Kingdom. But it will have consequences including in terms of dealing with migration."

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

Best me to the point rags!

Also might I add. Is this simply scaremongering done by the powers that be, to make us vote a certain way......ie YES to the EU?

Lord Foul wrote:If the EU has THAT attitude didge, perhaps we are right to question whether we want to be part of it since it clearly shows a spiteful attitude towards us....

in or out we will be shat on....so we may as well be out ...

We would send the Uk into a economic disaster

A big chunk of are trade is with the EU

This is why leaving is always going to be an issue and always was going to be an issue Victor

At the end of the day, if you had a partner and they wanted out and it would create problems for you, would you not also be a bit pissed off, when that partner was then also trading with many of your own customers?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

Best me to the point rags!

Also might I add. Is this simply scaremongering done by the powers that be, to make us vote a certain way......ie YES to the EU?

Actually Eddie, this is France placing pre-conditions of which there is nothing we can do anything about

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it would call into question the historic, friendly relations between France and the UK because this appears to be a move motivated by malice. There's no reason that leaving the EU should automatically cancel the agreement re border control.

Best me to the point rags!

Also might I add. Is this simply scaremongering done by the powers that be, to make us vote a certain way......ie YES to the EU?

Well it's the French who are saying it, so probably not.

Stormee wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So let's imagine the scenerio if the UK comes out of the EU. A load of immigrants will turn up at Calais and they'll try to get on a lorry or a train. The French won't stop them any more. What would happen?

Good point.
You will not like this.

FORCE of some kind would be the only thing we could do.
Blocking the Chunnel is the obvious thing to do.

What about ferry and aircraft, even small Dunkirk like craft, we would have to be brutal with them also.

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

I'm not convinced that France haven't been "told to say it"

I honestly do believe that a higher power plays us like pawns.
There's no way that the people will be allowed to choose.
If anyone believes that then they're nuts.

eddie wrote:I'm not convinced that France haven't been "told to say it"

I honestly do believe that a higher power plays us like pawns.
There's no way that the people will be allowed to choose.
If anyone believes that then they're nuts.

Why would the French agree to say that? What's in it for them? Perhaps they love us so much that they can't bear to let us go.

eddie wrote:I'm not convinced that France haven't been "told to say it"

I honestly do believe that a higher power plays us like pawns.
There's no way that the people will be allowed to choose.
If anyone believes that then they're nuts.

Socialist Government in power in France
They do not want the UK to leave

Like I say, its like qa family business the EU and having one of the family go their separate ways, sure some will be happy for them, but you will always have others who will go out of their way to make life as difficult as possible for them

There is no higher powers Eddie

It all depends on how much the French value the tunnel, and how much it affects their economy. If trains were held up, or if the tunnel was being closed all the time because there were a load of refugees coming through it, how much would the French lose?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:
Good point.
You will not like this.

FORCE of some kind would be the only thing we could do.
Blocking the Chunnel is the obvious thing to do.

What about ferry and aircraft, even small Dunkirk like craft, we would have to be brutal with them also.

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

So, let lftiz take them into their homes to live and support them.

Stormee wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

So, let lftiz take them into their homes to live and support them.

The Tories wouldn't do it Stormee because loads of people might disapprove and vote Labour instead.

Lord Foul wrote:If the EU has THAT attitude didge, perhaps we are right to question whether we want to be part of it since it clearly shows a spiteful attitude towards us....

in or out we will be shat on....so we may as well be out ...

I agree, and even if the vote is to stay, I think we need to question our relationship with France. Unless they can come up with a valid reason why they would end the border agreement, it really does just sound like malice.

Anyway, how will this affect the potential vote? I think that a lot of people will vote according to their views on immigration because they probably don't know much about the other economic issues.

They'll be thinking about issues like not being able to get a job because there are immigrants applying for the same jobs, unless the UK promises to give priority to British citizens. They'll be thinking about cultural changes in their area. If the people in Calais come here and claim asylum, the British voters will be thinking about the benefits they'll get and the housing they might get ahead of British citizens.

If they think that coming out of the EU will actually cause more immigration to this country, will they change their minds?

Lord Foul wrote:first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

FIRST,  find your dynamite...

Many First World countries stopped manufacturing dynamite back in the 1980s..

When in doubt--------C4.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:
Good point.
You will not like this.

FORCE of some kind would be the only thing we could do.
Blocking the Chunnel is the obvious thing to do.

What about ferry and aircraft, even small Dunkirk like craft, we would have to be brutal with them also.

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

That's the rub, isn't it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:
Good point.
You will not like this.

FORCE of some kind would be the only thing we could do.
Blocking the Chunnel is the obvious thing to do.

What about ferry and aircraft, even small Dunkirk like craft, we would have to be brutal with them also.

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

Sorry that is incorrect Rags as are obligations are not based on the EU in regards to asylum, as its in regards to international law


The legal basis for the protection of refugees is contained in the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, as amended by the 1967 protocol to the convention (together known as "the refugee convention"). A refugee is defined as a person who …

"… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence … is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Article 33 of the convention prohibits "refoulement" of refugees – ie removal to places or countries where their lives or freedom would be at risk on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The convention also imposes other obligations on states, such as to secure equal treatment for refugees and issue special travel documents to refugees, which can be used instead of their national passport.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If we left the EU, of course we would not be obliged to have the same rules on asylum, but can you really see any British Government turning away refugees? The lefties would have a fit!

Sorry that is incorrect Rags as are obligations are not based on the EU in regards to asylum, as its in regards to international law


The legal basis for the protection of refugees is contained in the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, as amended by the 1967 protocol to the convention (together known as "the refugee convention"). A refugee is defined as a person who …

"… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence … is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Article 33 of the convention prohibits "refoulement" of refugees – ie removal to places or countries where their lives or freedom would be at risk on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The convention also imposes other obligations on states, such as to secure equal treatment for refugees and issue special travel documents to refugees, which can be used instead of their national passport.

OK. We could send them back on the grounds that they passed through a safe country though. We could speed up the appeal process though, or refuse any appeals. We could make them stay in a camp, then they wouldn't want to come. I'm not advocating those things, I'm just saying what the options might be.

If the ferries stop them getting on and they are stopped getting on trains , wiil they swim?

Don't know Nicko, but perhaps you could at least stand up for the interpretors who served the Army abroad and to whom we have a duty of care, as they are being killed and tortured, and their families, because of it.  About 500 in the camp in Calais.  But never mind, even if the Generals are calling for them to be allowed in and saying them went above and beyond their duty, just throw them to the wolves eh and let them fend for themselves.

Why do you think I don't stand up for any one who helped the British Army? As far i'm concerned the interpreters should be first in the Q, I'M surprised that you think that of me.

Well Nicko, I presumed you would, but I don't think I have ever seen you say so in any thread about Calais.  Glad to hear it, because I don't think Tommy gives a shit from other threads.

I never knew there were interpreters waiting to get in,

not 300 surely?

Nearly 500 from Iraq and Afghanistan.

the left only care about these interpreters because they are ...well what they are

they clearly dont give a monkeys about OUR own lads that find themselves homeless

I mean where is corbyn, proclaiming that there will be priority for our homeless ex service men and women?

followed by our own homeless citizens

THEN and ONLY then, if we have the spaces some of those whom we can PROVE are a) genuine refugees and B) are NOT a terrorist threat

nope the lefty priority is to open that gate and let 3 million a year in (and we have heard it from the mouth of a labour person of note) who will of course be prioritised over every one else...just like the last lot...

of course to provide space for the 3 million a year, we will need to destroy acres of SSSI sites build over green belt and green gaps

taxes will have to rise to AT LEAST 30% lowest rate and the threshold will need to be REDUCED again

Oh and on a similar note...where is corbyn, loudly declaring he will roll back the benfit cuts to the poorest?

or better, alternatively imposing a realistic minimum wage...

Lord Foul wrote:first thing to do on leaving the EU.....

Dynamite the chunnel......

Second thing -- close all ports.

Third -- build a 1,000-foot wall around the entirety of the island.

Fourth -- cut off internet access.

Let's just treat the UK as though there's a zombie outbreak ...