I like the idea though, make it impossible/impractical to stay and easy to leave.. Not so sure that just moving the problem on/washing hands is the solution to this problem though.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
According to the BBC, their rights, the benefits etc are extremely comparable if they are genuine asylum seekers and claimed asylum in France.
Look, I don't think it's any secret why they would rather be in the UK than in France or Italy. If I were your average African economic migrant, I'd want to be in the UK.
Obviously, though, we need to uphold the rule of law. And it's grossly unfair of us to discriminate against people who follow the proper procedures.
Can I suggest the Swiss solution: make it impossible to work on the black market, remove all benefits for failed asylum seekers, and join Schengen so the asylum seekers self deport.
I can understand why they'd rather be in the UK. But I can't understand why they regard the difference between France and the UK as being so great that they're prepared to risk their lives. Maybe the French authorities are a lot more racist and brutal than anyone realises.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
For one thing, it probably ensures that UKIP aren't just going to disappear after the election.
I noted Iain Dale was laying into Cameron last night for allowing army numbers to drop beyond even their drastic planned reductions, and for volunteer numbers to fail to meet their targets to make up the shortfall. The changing of definitions to meet the 2% defence target was also an issue.
It's always going to be difficult to get people to join armed forces that are viewed poorly by the government, and whose numbers are being perpetually cut.
Not help by the blatant book cooking the government has been involved in to make it look like it was spending the 2% target whilst actually... not
For the first time, war pensions, contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, payouts to retired civil servants and Ministry of Defence income have been included.
Mr. Barber, journalists getting even simple tech stuff wrong can be hilarious/irksome.
Still remember the BBC talking about how e-readers make sleeping harder. Except it wasn't e-readers. It was e-books read via tablets.
Mind you, politicians are no better. The use of polygraphs on released paedophiles is indefensible madness, and Cameron's policy on encryption is blisteringly stupid.
1. Make it uncomfortable to stay and 2. Make it easy to leave
Being realistic, we're not going to get people to go to Libya or Eritrea or Syria. They'll deny they're from there. We'll have to lock them up. It'll cost a fortune.
But if we make sure they can't sleep on the streets, and we don't offer them benefits of any kind, and we allow them to get to France very easily...
As I said, counter-intuitive though it is, it's worked brilliantly for the Swiss.
On the old new Top Gear on the BBC: there's a rumour Button could be a presenter. There's also a rumour Button could go to Williams if Bottas replaces Raikkonen at Ferrari.
For what it's worth, Button would be fantastic as a presenter, I suspect, though I'd prefer him to work on F1.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
Theresa May is the Home Secretary - not doing her leadership chances any good this Calais difficulty.
What is the home secretary meant to do about a problem in another country?
Probably the only solution the government has is to shut the tunnel and have the ferries go to Belgium or Holland instead of Calais.
Play the game the way the French do, start vetoing stuff they want until they start cooperating on stuff we want. That is how the EU Parliament spends a few months a year in Strasbourg!
Theresa May is the Home Secretary - not doing her leadership chances any good this Calais difficulty.
What is the home secretary meant to do about a problem in another country?
Probably the only solution the government has is to shut the tunnel and have the ferries go to Belgium or Holland instead of Calais.
Eurotunnel made £100 million profit last year - fine them £100K for every illegal immigrant that makes it through. It might encourage them to invest more in better physical security, rather than expect the UK taxpayer to subsidise their business model, which is what's happening now.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
For one thing, it probably ensures that UKIP aren't just going to disappear after the election.
I noted Iain Dale was laying into Cameron last night for allowing army numbers to drop beyond even their drastic planned reductions, and for volunteer numbers to fail to meet their targets to make up the shortfall. The changing of definitions to meet the 2% defence target was also an issue.
It's always going to be difficult to get people to join armed forces that are viewed poorly by the government, and whose numbers are being perpetually cut.
The armed forces are always being cut.
Plus they have been transformed, via a combination of youtube/social media, first hand literary accounts, actual war fighting, and royal involvement, into heroes.
This is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In addition, senior military folk will be quietly bemoaning the lack of a current conflict both in order to recruit and for public perception purposes. To say nothing of the "use it or lose it" fear.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
It seems to be some sort of share dream of the left, and especially the far left that we have to be the world's soup kitchen. Both Mr Corbyn and the Green Party feel we should throw open the borders and welcome the world in, and then pay them benefits, educate their children and look after their health, for free. I am living in a country of 120m people at the moment almost all of whom would relocate to the UK in a second on those terms. In common with most on the left, the minor details of where are they going to live, and who is going to pay get overlooked in their zeal.
No HMG is the sides best performer. With the Greece fiasco, and now the Calais fiasco, and shortly the Its-a-renegotiation-honest-trust-me fiasco, the outside can almost sit back and watch.
So let's not try to fix the dogs dinner of a constitutional settlement we have, because the SNP would advocate a rejection of it in Scotland? Hmm, I am not sure that is the most compelling of arguments. But it is one that accepts the UK will disappear shortly. Under a Tory government.
Shame Labour created the dogs dinner we have and have objected to every attempted solution we've come up with like EVEL.
EV4EL is not a solution. It is a short-term fix. And the government could not even get that right. A solution would be one that is agreed between all parties after detailed discussion at a constitutional convention and then endorsed by the electorate. But parties (and many of their supporters) will not see beyond short-term advantage and the next electoral cycle. Thus, some time within the next ten years the UK will disappear - on the watch of a Tory government.
You're right, that would be a solution. But it's not going to happen.
A constitutional convention will be rejected by the SNP and used to trigger another independence vote. The Union might win, it might not.
Address the issues piecemeal and avoid giving the SNP an excuse to call a second vote & the union will survive
1. Make it uncomfortable to stay and 2. Make it easy to leave
Being realistic, we're not going to get people to go to Libya or Eritrea or Syria. They'll deny they're from there. We'll have to lock them up. It'll cost a fortune.
But if we make sure they can't sleep on the streets, and we don't offer them benefits of any kind, and we allow them to get to France very easily...
As I said, counter-intuitive though it is, it's worked brilliantly for the Swiss.
An elegant solution, which as you say has worked very well for the Swiss. However, it is not without its costs which are unlikely to prove palatable to the British People.
Firstly, it means everyone having an ID card.
Secondly, it means giving the police the powers to demand to see everyone's ID card whenever they feel like it.
Thirdly, it means building lots of prisons and detention centres to hold those people who do not have/cannot show their ID card.
Plus of course the idea would not actually work for several years - it will take that long before the word spreads that coming to the UK is not worth it during which time their will be lots and lots of legal cases and appeals all slowing down the effect that the scheme was designed to produce.
In short it will not work and the costs of introducing the failure would be far too high for the populace to stomach.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
1. Make it uncomfortable to stay and 2. Make it easy to leave
Being realistic, we're not going to get people to go to Libya or Eritrea or Syria. They'll deny they're from there. We'll have to lock them up. It'll cost a fortune.
But if we make sure they can't sleep on the streets, and we don't offer them benefits of any kind, and we allow them to get to France very easily...
As I said, counter-intuitive though it is, it's worked brilliantly for the Swiss.
An elegant solution, which as you say has worked very well for the Swiss. However, it is not without its costs which are unlikely to prove palatable to the British People.
Firstly, it means everyone having an ID card.
Secondly, it means giving the police the powers to demand to see everyone's ID card whenever they feel like it.
Thirdly, it means building lots of prisons and detention centres to hold those people who do not have/cannot show their ID card.
Plus of course the idea would not actually work for several years - it will take that long before the word spreads that coming to the UK is not worth it during which time their will be lots and lots of legal cases and appeals all slowing down the effect that the scheme was designed to produce.
In short it will not work and the costs of introducing the failure would be far too high for the populace to stomach.
I wasn't proposing it entirely seriously. However, it is worth remembering that there are a lot of things we can do that would act as very efficient disincentives to illegal migration.
The biggest thing, I would suggest, is that we need to crack down very hard on firms that hire people without proper documentation or who evade NI/PAYE/etc. If there is much less of a black market economy to work in, that makes it much less attractive to come to the UK.
Remarkably at the Cricket, if depressing, England won't have a significant advantage going into the second innings. If not for the lucky catch of Lyth and the absolute fluke catch of Cook yesterday, who knows what the situation might be.
funny old game.. 10.45 TMS has interview with jimmy asking him how he'd hope not to have to bat today... an hour later it's odds-on he'll be bowling before lunch!!!
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
You do talk some tosh Mr Roger. My foreign currency till continues to ring quite merrily with not the slightest hint of a comment about Mr Cameron except to wonder why we don't throw all these people coming illegally through the tunnel initially in jail, and the out the country. But then many Asians are so conservative in their views of law and order, happily we have plenty coming legally to the UK to slowly replace the socialist dreamers.
Remarkably at the Cricket, if depressing England won't have a significangt advantage going into the second innings. If not for the lucky catch of Lyth and the absolute fluke catch of Cook yesterday, who knows what the situation might be.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
Yes, won't anyone think of the wealthy British expats in all this? They are the real victims.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
Remarkably at the Cricket, if depressing, England won't have a significant advantage going into the second innings. If not for the lucky catch of Lyth and the absolute fluke catch of Cook yesterday, who knows what the situation might be.
Yep.
I've heard similar things said in racing: if only he hadn't fallen at the 2nd last he'd have won that by a distance.....
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
Mummy, what does hyperbole mean?
Roger forgetting Blair and Iraq is also special.
Unless Roger was proud to be British and Blair's slaughter of thousands of Muslims.
But to Labour, Muslims are only good for winning votes by making the whites angry.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
Unemployment at circa 2 million is nowhere near full employment.Until we get back to the levels we had in the 1950s and 1960s such a claim is fantasy.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
For one thing, it probably ensures that UKIP aren't just going to disappear after the election.
I noted Iain Dale was laying into Cameron last night for allowing army numbers to drop beyond even their drastic planned reductions, and for volunteer numbers to fail to meet their targets to make up the shortfall. The changing of definitions to meet the 2% defence target was also an issue.
Didn't silly Iain Dale have someone to beat up on Brighton sea front?
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
What the hell are you going on about?
Most regular people think we're being relaxed to the point of near insanity with these law breaking migrants.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
What the hell are you going on about?
Most regular people think we're being relaxed to the point of near insanity with these law breaking migrants.
Spare a thought for dear old Roger. It must be hard keeping your finger on the pulse back in Britain, when one spends so much time exiled in the south of France, the only source of news being discarded copies of the Daily Mail surreptitiously read under the table in Cafe Chic .
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
Mummy, what does hyperbole mean?
Bleating about living in a one-party state son, that's hyperbole.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
Unemployment at circa 2 million is nowhere near full employment.Until we get back to the levels we had in the 1950s and 1960s such a claim is fantasy.
Actually if you look at the cabinet papers during Attlee's government 5% unemployment was regarded as full-employment. The point being that there is always some churn in the Labour market and it is healthy that there is such.
Of course in those days there was not a very, very large number of people on incapacity benefit, which can be a simply disguised unemployment. Then there is the much greater participation by ladies in the employment market now compared to the 1950s (post war the Trade Unions were very keen to get women out of the workplace save for "traditional" roles). So a direct comparison or even a consistent definition of what constitutes full employment is very difficult.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
It seems to be some sort of share dream of the left, and especially the far left that we have to be the world's soup kitchen. Both Mr Corbyn and the Green Party feel we should throw open the borders and welcome the world in, and then pay them benefits, educate their children and look after their health, for free. I am living in a country of 120m people at the moment almost all of whom would relocate to the UK in a second on those terms. In common with most on the left, the minor details of where are they going to live, and who is going to pay get overlooked in their zeal.
I really don't understand the lefts mindset regarding immigration.
My only theory that makes any sense is that they want the state to fail, be able to blame "capitalism" for it all and then rebuild a socialist utopia in its place.
As mentioned thread. BOOers must be equally horrifed/delighted
Calais' thin blue line: Helpless French police are over-run as hundreds more migrants storm Channel Tunnel declaring 'it's England or death' - so when will Cameron finally take action?
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
Unemployment at circa 2 million is nowhere near full employment.Until we get back to the levels we had in the 1950s and 1960s such a claim is fantasy.
Actually if you look at the cabinet papers during Attlee's government 5% unemployment was regarded as full-employment. The point being that there is always some churn in the Labour market and it is healthy that there is such.
Of course in those days there was not a very, very large number of people on incapacity benefit, which can be a simply disguised unemployment. Then there is the much greater participation by ladies in the employment market now compared to the 1950s (post war the Trade Unions were very keen to get women out of the workplace save for "traditional" roles). So a direct comparison or even a consistent definition of what constitutes full employment is very difficult.
Even as late as 1970 unemployment levels of 500,000 or so were considered high.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
Unemployment at circa 2 million is nowhere near full employment.Until we get back to the levels we had in the 1950s and 1960s such a claim is fantasy.
Actually if you look at the cabinet papers during Attlee's government 5% unemployment was regarded as full-employment. The point being that there is always some churn in the Labour market and it is healthy that there is such.
Of course in those days there was not a very, very large number of people on incapacity benefit, which can be a simply disguised unemployment. Then there is the much greater participation by ladies in the employment market now compared to the 1950s (post war the Trade Unions were very keen to get women out of the workplace save for "traditional" roles). So a direct comparison or even a consistent definition of what constitutes full employment is very difficult.
Incapacity was the great ruse of Major and Blair. But the employment rate is now at historically high levels which means that a further significant reduction is unlikely. Nevertheless, less than 5% unemployment is achievable.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
Another one relishing the migrant situation due to the damage it may cause the Conservatives.
Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
That would be me then.....oh wait, I will eat my hat Ashdown style if I even get a mention of it from one of my foreign customers, and I will eat it thrice over if any such remarks were negative. I have no doubt at all the the overwhelming majority of my European customers at the very least would be cheering us on in trying to stem the flow.
Jesus H Christ, there's some bloody hand wringing going on over this - They are in France. They are safe. They have passed through a number of safe countries to get there. Why cannot they claim asylum there?
If we let them in more will surely follow risking their lives, and they will be camped out as the weather worsens (I suspect an English Channel winter outdoors is going to cause its own humanitarian crisis so best we don't make a camp of 4000, 20,000 by encouraging more). If we let them in it will be Darwinism in action, as these seem to be preponderantly fit young men under 30, and so precisely the type that will survive open boats, and living rough, better than the old, the sick, the pregnant. What about those legitimately in the system - should the 36 year old woman with three toddlers be bumped down the queue because some ex Eritrean (or wherever) army lieutenant aged 23 can vault the barbed wire better?
Surely it cannot be long before the French get a grip and send in the CRS to round them up and process them in a more orderly and legitimate system there for the migrants own safety and well being, and as I doubt the burghers of Calais are impressed never mind us (you know those just peaceably leading their lives wondering why the f**** their Govt isn't upholding their laws and allowing feral behaviour day after day by a (yes desperate I grant) few thousand people.
@welshowl TBH, I think the French are doing just enough to cover their arses and hoping we'll give in and take them. They certainly don't want them either.
In our latest poll of 5,000 respondents, conducted between 29th June and 6th July, “Yes” lead “No” in the referendum voting intentions by 45% to 37%. While 18% of likely voters are currently undecided. Leaving aside the undecided voters for now, if the referendum were held today the result would be expected to be:Yes – 54.4% No – 45.6%
This is an 8.8 point lead for “Yes”; about 2 points smaller than the margin of victory for “No” in the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
However, this was a question about a referendum today. Of course, in reality the referendum will take place in a different context, after an attempted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership.
The French can afford to do nothing and be patient over Calais, its in their interest for as many as possible to leave for the UK. They won't care how many die, how outraged we are, how long op stack is, they're happily making it our problem.
I think the word "swarm" is inappropriate, but not racist. It merely gives the impression that the problem in Calais is not as great as it is. And the problem is both humanitarian and security, not either/or.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
Unemployment at circa 2 million is nowhere near full employment.Until we get back to the levels we had in the 1950s and 1960s such a claim is fantasy.
You are wrong - most economists would say full employment occurs nowadays between 5-6%. The workforce patterns are very different from the 50-70s so your comparison is no longer valid.
I think the word "swarm" is inappropriate, but not racist. It merely gives the impression that the problem in Calais is not as great as it is. And the problem is both humanitarian and security, not either/or.
The whole issue turns from discussing what we should do about the problem to what is and isn't racist. Madness.
@welshowl TBH, I think the French are doing just enough to cover their arses and hoping we'll give in and take them. They certainly don't want them either.
In our latest poll of 5,000 respondents, conducted between 29th June and 6th July, “Yes” lead “No” in the referendum voting intentions by 45% to 37%. While 18% of likely voters are currently undecided. Leaving aside the undecided voters for now, if the referendum were held today the result would be expected to be:Yes – 54.4% No – 45.6%
This is an 8.8 point lead for “Yes”; about 2 points smaller than the margin of victory for “No” in the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
However, this was a question about a referendum today. Of course, in reality the referendum will take place in a different context, after an attempted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership.
A lead of around a hundred is going to be like gold dust on this surface. The test isn't heading for a fifth day anyway so the 4th innings will be 'early'.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
It seems to be some sort of share dream of the left, and especially the far left that we have to be the world's soup kitchen. Both Mr Corbyn and the Green Party feel we should throw open the borders and welcome the world in, and then pay them benefits, educate their children and look after their health, for free. I am living in a country of 120m people at the moment almost all of whom would relocate to the UK in a second on those terms. In common with most on the left, the minor details of where are they going to live, and who is going to pay get overlooked in their zeal.
I really don't understand the lefts mindset regarding immigration.
My only theory that makes any sense is that they want the state to fail, be able to blame "capitalism" for it all and then rebuild a socialist utopia in its place.
The people have forfeited the confidence of the Left. The solution lies in dissolving the people and getting another.
In our latest poll of 5,000 respondents, conducted between 29th June and 6th July, “Yes” lead “No” in the referendum voting intentions by 45% to 37%. While 18% of likely voters are currently undecided. Leaving aside the undecided voters for now, if the referendum were held today the result would be expected to be:Yes – 54.4% No – 45.6%
This is an 8.8 point lead for “Yes”; about 2 points smaller than the margin of victory for “No” in the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
However, this was a question about a referendum today. Of course, in reality the referendum will take place in a different context, after an attempted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
It seems to be some sort of share dream of the left, and especially the far left that we have to be the world's soup kitchen. Both Mr Corbyn and the Green Party feel we should throw open the borders and welcome the world in, and then pay them benefits, educate their children and look after their health, for free. I am living in a country of 120m people at the moment almost all of whom would relocate to the UK in a second on those terms. In common with most on the left, the minor details of where are they going to live, and who is going to pay get overlooked in their zeal.
I really don't understand the lefts mindset regarding immigration.
My only theory that makes any sense is that they want the state to fail, be able to blame "capitalism" for it all and then rebuild a socialist utopia in its place.
The people have forfeited the confidence of the Left. The solution lies in dissolving the people and getting another.
To quote one of the key inspirational figures for Corbyn and his fellow travellers ...
In our latest poll of 5,000 respondents, conducted between 29th June and 6th July, “Yes” lead “No” in the referendum voting intentions by 45% to 37%. While 18% of likely voters are currently undecided. Leaving aside the undecided voters for now, if the referendum were held today the result would be expected to be:Yes – 54.4% No – 45.6%
This is an 8.8 point lead for “Yes”; about 2 points smaller than the margin of victory for “No” in the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
However, this was a question about a referendum today. Of course, in reality the referendum will take place in a different context, after an attempted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership.
Remarkably at the Cricket, if depressing, England won't have a significant advantage going into the second innings. If not for the lucky catch of Lyth and the absolute fluke catch of Cook yesterday, who knows what the situation might be.
Yep.
I've heard similar things said in racing: if only he hadn't fallen at the 2nd last he'd have won that by a distance.....
I think the word "swarm" is inappropriate, but not racist. It merely gives the impression that the problem in Calais is not as great as it is. And the problem is both humanitarian and security, not either/or.
I agree. It is the sort of term I would encourage people to avoid using but would not judge them if it slipped out. Iain Dale was criticising the term 'invasion' being used, but I would have thought 150 people breaking into a territory qualifies for the exact definition.
Comments
Not so sure that just moving the problem on/washing hands is the solution to this problem though.
(must admit I’d never heard of Amazon Live before today)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11772803/Jeremy-Clarkson-Richard-Hammond-and-James-May-sign-to-Amazon.html
'We are spending millions building fences in Calais, militarising it etc... Does any of this sound familiar?'
Only to Mary Poppins.
Wonder if any rivals of hers, any master strategists in particular may have suggested the appointment back in 2010...
I don't think they quite get this streaming/TV on demand thing...
Not help by the blatant book cooking the government has been involved in to make it look like it was spending the 2% target whilst actually... not
Still remember the BBC talking about how e-readers make sleeping harder. Except it wasn't e-readers. It was e-books read via tablets.
Mind you, politicians are no better. The use of polygraphs on released paedophiles is indefensible madness, and Cameron's policy on encryption is blisteringly stupid.
Probably the only solution the government has is to shut the tunnel and have the ferries go to Belgium or Holland instead of Calais.
You need to do two things:
1. Make it uncomfortable to stay
and
2. Make it easy to leave
Being realistic, we're not going to get people to go to Libya or Eritrea or Syria. They'll deny they're from there. We'll have to lock them up. It'll cost a fortune.
But if we make sure they can't sleep on the streets, and we don't offer them benefits of any kind, and we allow them to get to France very easily...
As I said, counter-intuitive though it is, it's worked brilliantly for the Swiss.
For what it's worth, Button would be fantastic as a presenter, I suspect, though I'd prefer him to work on F1.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, nice idea, but won't happen. The left won't ever be mean to failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, and the right is too afraid of being painted as mean (I suspect).
Nigel Farage has said be would not describe migrants as "swarms", just hours after doing so.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-30/farage-caught-out-over-swarms-of-migrants-comment/
Plus they have been transformed, via a combination of youtube/social media, first hand literary accounts, actual war fighting, and royal involvement, into heroes.
This is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In addition, senior military folk will be quietly bemoaning the lack of a current conflict both in order to recruit and for public perception purposes. To say nothing of the "use it or lose it" fear.
A constitutional convention will be rejected by the SNP and used to trigger another independence vote. The Union might win, it might not.
Address the issues piecemeal and avoid giving the SNP an excuse to call a second vote & the union will survive
Firstly, it means everyone having an ID card.
Secondly, it means giving the police the powers to demand to see everyone's ID card whenever they feel like it.
Thirdly, it means building lots of prisons and detention centres to hold those people who do not have/cannot show their ID card.
Plus of course the idea would not actually work for several years - it will take that long before the word spreads that coming to the UK is not worth it during which time their will be lots and lots of legal cases and appeals all slowing down the effect that the scheme was designed to produce.
In short it will not work and the costs of introducing the failure would be far too high for the populace to stomach.
The trouble is however, the UK will never introduce the disincentives that the Swiss have imposed on economic migrants.
In the UK no doubt, some bright spark would propose introducing Schengen first - and then wonder why the rest plan fell apart.
I was doing a job in Germany during the very black period of Thatchers rule. Thatcher had just made one of her ignorant outbursts about Europe/ Germany and someone light heartedly asked me what I made of her outburst. they all laughed and I shrugged. What's the point of telling Germans of all people 'nothing to do with me-I didn't even vote for her'
The embarrassment though is very real. So spare a thought for all those British folk earning foreign currency for all our well being having to suffer the thoughtlessness of OUR Prime Minister's brutal and thoughtless remarks.
The biggest thing, I would suggest, is that we need to crack down very hard on firms that hire people without proper documentation or who evade NI/PAYE/etc. If there is much less of a black market economy to work in, that makes it much less attractive to come to the UK.
Anyway, time for some exercise.
I've heard similar things said in racing: if only he hadn't fallen at the 2nd last he'd have won that by a distance.....
Unless Roger was proud to be British and Blair's slaughter of thousands of Muslims.
But to Labour, Muslims are only good for winning votes by making the whites angry.
'Re Mr Cameron's insensitive remarks towards the tragedy unfolding in Calais.'
Aggressive ,violent ,law breaking young men being stopped from entering the UK,that really is some tragedy.
Most regular people think we're being relaxed to the point of near insanity with these law breaking migrants.
It's an amazingly effective strategy and it still works like a charm.
Of course in those days there was not a very, very large number of people on incapacity benefit, which can be a simply disguised unemployment. Then there is the much greater participation by ladies in the employment market now compared to the 1950s (post war the Trade Unions were very keen to get women out of the workplace save for "traditional" roles). So a direct comparison or even a consistent definition of what constitutes full employment is very difficult.
My only theory that makes any sense is that they want the state to fail, be able to blame "capitalism" for it all and then rebuild a socialist utopia in its place.
England doing their best to lose.
Is English your first language ?
busbandwagon?@BBCNormanS: David Cameron de-humanising some of the world's most desperte people - @timfarron #swarm
I never said you were the one accusing him of racism anyway.
I wish Nigel had stuck to his guns. It's this sort of PC silliness that he's great at standing up against.
Jesus H Christ, there's some bloody hand wringing going on over this - They are in France. They are safe. They have passed through a number of safe countries to get there. Why cannot they claim asylum there?
If we let them in more will surely follow risking their lives, and they will be camped out as the weather worsens (I suspect an English Channel winter outdoors is going to cause its own humanitarian crisis so best we don't make a camp of 4000, 20,000 by encouraging more). If we let them in it will be Darwinism in action, as these seem to be preponderantly fit young men under 30, and so precisely the type that will survive open boats, and living rough, better than the old, the sick, the pregnant. What about those legitimately in the system - should the 36 year old woman with three toddlers be bumped down the queue because some ex Eritrean (or wherever) army lieutenant aged 23 can vault the barbed wire better?
Surely it cannot be long before the French get a grip and send in the CRS to round them up and process them in a more orderly and legitimate system there for the migrants own safety and well being, and as I doubt the burghers of Calais are impressed never mind us (you know those just peaceably leading their lives wondering why the f**** their Govt isn't upholding their laws and allowing feral behaviour day after day by a (yes desperate I grant) few thousand people.
Honestly when every single word is pored over and jumped on by the outrage police it's surprising it doesn't happen every day.
In our latest poll of 5,000 respondents, conducted between 29th June and 6th July, “Yes” lead “No” in the referendum voting intentions by 45% to 37%. While 18% of likely voters are currently undecided. Leaving aside the
undecided voters for now, if the referendum were held today the result would be expected to be:Yes – 54.4% No – 45.6%
This is an 8.8 point lead for “Yes”; about 2 points smaller than the margin of victory for “No” in the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.
However, this was a question about a referendum today. Of course, in reality the referendum will take place in a different context, after an attempted renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership.
http://bit.ly/1VP2lLa
Cameron is hoping this goes away, it won't.
Concern for the migrants ? Yes - in spades - bring them over an let the bankers feed them.
Concern for the working class truck drivers ? - NONE.
But the key issue to take from it is : what words the toff Cameron used to describe them.
And they wonder why they keep losing elections.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33714740
A lead of around a hundred is going to be like gold dust on this surface. The test isn't heading for a fifth day anyway so the 4th innings will be 'early'.
@LabourList: Labour’s ground campaign is better than the Tories’, and here’s why, says @SephRBrown http://labli.st/1Is2s56
New Thread
So what do we get from Labour about Calais. A workable solution? Oh, no, they raise their skirts and run shrieking away ...
"Swarming! He said a naughty word! Oh! Oh! Oh!"
Reminiscent of the Jehovah sketch in 'Life of Brian.'
Welcome to the Kindergarten.
A stay on British terrority - but not the mainland - while their claims are assessed. How about St Helena?