How does this work then Martin?

Emmanuel Macron’s Bayeux tapestry loan is one in the eye for Brexiters

The possible loan of a tapestry showing some Frogland residents conquering England is a blow for those who would prefer not to be absorbed into the Frogland Borg how?

23 comments on “How does this work then Martin?

  1. 1. The Bayeaux Tapestry coming to Britain is (so it is claimed) a good thing.
    2. Brexit was the cause of the Bayeaux Tapestry coming to Britain (because it sure as hell wouldn’t have happened without Brexit).
    Therefore:
    3. Brexit causes good things to happen.

    So if this is one in the eye for anyone (which it isn’t, really), it’s one in the eye for Remainers.

  2. Yesterday: We’re getting the Bayeux tapestry, hooray!
    Today: We’re paying the frogs £44.5m in border security costs, AND agreeing to take in more migrants from Calais. But hey, they’re letting us borrow a mouldy old carpet.

  3. “We’re paying the frogs £44.5m in border security costs”

    About time too. Protecting the UK border in Calais has been costing the French a damn sight more than £44.5m. Protecting the French border in Dover costs the UK approximately thruppence.

  4. Perhaps if the French spent more than thruppence on their southern and eastern borders, they wouldn’t have such a big bill at Calais.

  5. Except the ‘Frogs’ in question were actually Viking invaders who had already successfully invaded France (presumably border controls in those days were as ineffectual as in modern times)

  6. @ starfish
    No, most of them were chancers from all over France, Brittany and Flanders tempted by the prospect of booty and land.

  7. Perhaps the French should learn from their previous cowardice and give the Dindus their own chunk of France–Dindundy say–as they did with the Vikings.

    Not likely tho’ –the Beards will soon have all of France so why settle for less?

  8. In the spirit of celebrating Anglo-French history, we should also follow Yes Minister’s advice and rename the offensive Waterloo station. Agincourt station would be much better.

  9. BiS: About time too. Protecting the UK border in Calais has been costing the French a damn sight more than £44.5m.

    Yes. The Le Touquet accord which governs this is a bilateral deal so of course the UK should bear its share of the cost. Mind you, the root cause is Schengen and that’s France’s self-inflicted wound. Hence:

    Protecting the French border in Dover costs the UK approximately thruppence.

    Because the UK is not in Schengen which is why Mrs May needs to explain to M Macron today that the UK will not take any of his migrants because the folly of Schengen should stay within the confines of Schengen..

  10. France has no interest in British border security and giving them money won’t change that. Should Brexit go ahead I would expect this problem to get worse, because sticking it to the rosbeefs.

  11. RleJ: France has no interest in British border security and giving them money won’t change that.

    Well, up to a point. France, like the UK, has a definite interest in the smooth working of transport links across the channel and these would become clogged if the illegals were stopped at Dover and Folkestone and returned whence they had come. The fines that could be levied in the UK against the transporters would likely make crossings more expensive as well as slower.

    Gallic pragmatism and self-interest will dictate what if anything happens during and after Brexit – as with security and defence co-operation.

  12. @Roué le Jour
    If France has no interest in UK border security I’d like to know why was being pulled by Douane almost every I went round the Meteren roundabout, off the A25, in the Brit reg car. They certainly weren’t suspecting me of smuggling cheap fags over the frontier from Mont Noir.
    I’d disagree with TMB about French interests. The vast majority of of vehicles using the Channel crossings are through traffic to & from the rest of Europe. If the French at the ports just stood back with their arms folded, it’d be the rest of Europe’d be taking the punishment. France has been paying the price for Brit politicians, ignoring the wishes of their own population, so they can posture about how humanitarian they all are over illegal immigration. If the illegals weren’t getting such a good deal if they get a home run, there’d be no incentives for them to try & cross the Channel in the first place. There’s bugger all else in Pas-de-Calais/Nord attracting them.

  13. As stated often on here before, the illegals still wouldn’t make it to Dover. For the reason stated: “The fines that could be levied in the UK against the transporters”. Same as for airlines etc now.

    If transporters take over more checking actvity as a result, then yes, prices. The transporters would simply (and in order not to lose business due to queues it would be in their financial interest to) install more check points at Calais to maintain flow.

  14. @The Meissen Bison, January 18, 2018 at 11:27 am

    Because the UK is not in Schengen which is why Mrs May needs to explain to M Macron today that the UK will not take any of his migrants because the folly of Schengen should stay within the confines of Schengen..

    +1 Excellent point

  15. “the folly of Schengen”

    For countries on the continental mainland, Schengen is simply a recognition of reality. You can’t (unless you’re going to build a giant wall – see DDR, Israel and now, perhaps, USA) completely close a land border – and that includes river borders, since anyone with a boat (and that will be most people who live on the banks) can easily cross.

    Even when we stationed half the (then much larger) British Army in NI, we couldn’t effectively control a few hundred miles of land border with Eire. But, being island nations, joining Schengen makes no (and never could make any) sense for the UK or Eire.

  16. Chris Miller: For countries on the continental mainland, Schengen is simply a recognition of reality.

    You’re entirely right insofar as borders are porous and people will cross them.

    The critical point, though, is that if the immigration people scoop up within their territory people with no papers and no visas they are more easily dealt with than under Schengen which removes an important layer of provenance.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.