David Cameron is to warn that a Brexit would leave Britain vulnerable to terror attacks and that migrant camps will spring up across the South East of England.
The Prime Minister will make national security issues the centrepiece of his campaign to keep Britain in the European Union.

“The French would love to pull out of the arrangement,” a senior source said. “We will be telling people – look, if we leave the EU the Jungle camp in Calais will move to Folkestone. That is not something people want.”

If people turn up on Folkestone without papers then we stick them back on the boat to Calais. Just not our problem.

And the rule change to make sure is simple enough, just as with airlines, if someone lands without the papers then the carrier pays £2k and also has to take them away again.

16 thoughts on “Why?”

  1. Every lying sack of shit in the world is being rolled out to tell us how the sky will fall if we get out of the EU’s clutches,

    No lie is too large, too small, too stupid or too ridiculous. The bullshit will flow broader than the Nile, the Amazon and the Mississippi all rolled into one.

    That the desperate lying little leftist BluLab shite Mr Phig-Fook should be at the forefront of the wall of sewage is hardly a surprise.

    The rules re migrants–aren’t those international agreements anyway–not EU?

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    If people turn up on Folkestone without papers then we stick them back on the boat to Calais.

    If they immediately say they have good reason to be given asylum, the Courts will insist that we hear their asylum claims. That means ten years of appeals and lots of money for British lawyers so of course the Courts will make them do it.

    For once Dave seems to be on to something. Still not a reason to stay. A reason to get out of the EU and the UN’s refugee convention.

  3. At Calais the French don’t want them to move south back into France , and they are obliged not to let them move onward north in order to cross the Channel. That would not be the case in Folkestone or Dover etc.

    So as Tim says.

  4. Of course David Cameron has no concern for British independence and national sovereignty.

    There is currently an online petition to have the British government recognize Taiwan as an independent country. I mean… beyond the obvious problem of defining “Taiwan” and whether this should include the territorial claims of the Republic of China or not, it baffles me how Taiwanese or anyone else can expect the British government to support their freedom and independence when the British government doesn’t even support the freedom and independence of Britain.

  5. If we make sure there’s no ‘sugar on the table’ then asylum seekers won’t turn up anyway. Just like Tony Abbott did in Australia.

  6. The lying toerag. He knows full well that its a bi-lateral arrangement agreed between France and Britain and has nothing to do with the EU whatsoever. Major Mkll.

  7. The reason we have a bilateral agreement is to allow the ferry and rail companies to operate without being crippled by the cost of repatriating illegals. The reason we have border guards on the other side of the channel and on Eurostar trains is all about keeping the services running and has nothing to do with some favour done for us by the French.

  8. Tel,

    The Australian solution has worked marvellously well. Zero drownings, zero illega migrants. A win-win situation. I’m surprised to see so little mention of it in the media.

    It’s not relevant to the Calais problem though – unless the migrants start drifting across the channel on inflatable dinghies purchased from a local sporting goods shop.

  9. “The reason we have a bilateral agreement is to allow the ferry and rail companies to operate without being crippled by the cost of repatriating illegals.”
    The reason’s so the time taken to do processing is done on the punter’s tab in France & not on the ferry/rail companies’ tab in Dover/Folkestone.

  10. This is a classic example of how our very membership of the EU acts as a corrupt influence on our own national politics and government. It provides cover for every lying toerag in Westminster to dodge his duty by pretending the EU won’t let him do what we require of him. Usually, by the time a few dedicated researchers have gone through the regulations to expose him as a liar, public interest has drifted elsewhere.
    That alone is a good reason for leaving.

  11. Did he explain how it would lead to a greater risk of terrorism? Would leaving the EU, for example, enlarge our Muslim population or enrage them even further, in some obscure but perfectly predictable way?

    Why not go the whole hog and say Brexit will mean more paedos?

  12. “The Australian solution has worked marvellously well. Zero drownings, zero illega migrants. A win-win situation. I’m surprised to see so little mention of it in the media.

    It’s not relevant to the Calais problem though – unless the migrants start drifting across the channel on inflatable dinghies purchased from a local sporting goods shop.”

    It is relevant to Calais. The point is that you make it unattractive to come here in the first place, so asylum seekers don’t want to come. That’s what Abbott did. That’s what asylum seekers mean when they talk about whether there’s any ‘sugar on the table’ in a particular country. No sugar, no (or few) asylum seekers.

  13. Tel is correct. The point wasn’t the specific mechanism of arrivals to Australia, or the way it was dealt with. The point is to deny the prize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *