Discussion:
If Britain were out of the EU, what would we do about the migrant crisis at Calais?
(too old to reply)
MM
2015-06-26 12:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.

How will our NOT being an EU member change things?

MM
Saint George
2015-06-26 12:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
MM
2015-06-26 13:16:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.

One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.

MM
Etaoin Shrdlu
2015-06-26 13:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
MM
I keep hearing that we're supposed to set an example, or something. It
causes us all kinds of bother.
Saint George
2015-06-26 14:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
MM
They shouldn't even be able get to Calais, this is a problem from lax EU
border control (or the lack of any control)

Does anyone know what these idiots actually do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontex
MM
2015-06-27 08:49:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:06:10 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
MM
They shouldn't even be able get to Calais, this is a problem from lax EU
border control (or the lack of any control)
Fair enough, but what would *Britain* do differently if it were
outside the EU, to control these migrants once they'd reached Calais?

MM
Pelican
2015-06-27 00:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
You might have a slight misunderstanding about the Australian model. All
they do is stop small boats bringing asylum-seekers to Australian waters.
It's a simple process. An equivalent model would be to stop trucks carrying
migrants before they reach the UK. It's not the same model, is it?
MM
2015-06-27 08:49:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:14:56 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
You might have a slight misunderstanding about the Australian model. All
they do is stop small boats bringing asylum-seekers to Australian waters.
It's a simple process. An equivalent model would be to stop trucks carrying
migrants before they reach the UK. It's not the same model, is it?
Is a ferry not a boat, then?

MM
Pelican
2015-06-27 12:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:14:56 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:32:51 +0100, Saint George
Post by Saint George
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
Nothing will change because traitor liberal backstabbers like yourself
will still be there to wave them through...
On the contrary, I believe they should be sent back whence they came.
But we don't have the bottle for adopting even an attenuated
Australian model.
One thing the British Establishment cannot abide is criticism from
other nations' leaders, movers and shakers, whereas the Ozzies simply
say: "Fuck off, mate!" and hang the consequences.
You might have a slight misunderstanding about the Australian model. All
they do is stop small boats bringing asylum-seekers to Australian waters.
It's a simple process. An equivalent model would be to stop trucks carrying
migrants before they reach the UK. It's not the same model, is it?
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
MM
2015-06-28 09:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.

Do please keep up!

MM
Pelican
2015-06-28 13:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
MM
2015-06-29 10:28:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.

MM
Pelican
2015-06-29 12:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
MM
2015-06-29 17:34:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not quite the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!

MM
Pelican
2015-06-29 22:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
MM
2015-06-30 12:23:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France, and they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."

Actually, that was five hints.

MM
Pelican
2015-06-30 23:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
MM
2015-07-01 09:09:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?

(Or by boat, for that matter.)

MM
Pelican
2015-07-01 09:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
MM
2015-07-02 09:50:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:33:03 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry? Like the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
And if they don't get it, what happens to them?
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
Well, there ya go!

MM
Pelican
2015-07-02 11:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:33:03 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry?
Like
the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
And if they don't get it, what happens to them?
They are sent to Calais.
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
Well, there ya go!
If you say so.
MM
2015-07-03 10:54:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 21:09:45 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:33:03 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry?
Like
the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
And if they don't get it, what happens to them?
They are sent to Calais.
Eh? From Australia? How do theyget from an Australian detention centre
all the way to Calais, France unaided?
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
Well, there ya go!
If you say so.
I was just remarking on the fallibility of your argument.

MM
Pelican
2015-07-03 13:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 21:09:45 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:33:03 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry?
Like
the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no
comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
And if they don't get it, what happens to them?
They are sent to Calais.
Eh? From Australia? How do theyget from an Australian detention centre
all the way to Calais, France unaided?
Osmosis.
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
Well, there ya go!
If you say so.
I was just remarking on the fallibility of your argument.
No, you were not.
MM
2015-07-04 08:13:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 23:49:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 21:09:45 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:33:03 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:27:22 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:37 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:05:09 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:21:40 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Is a ferry not a boat, then?
You say that the migrants pay for passage on a normal ferry?
Like
the
asylum-seekers pay for passage on the Indonesian boats? It's not
quite
the
same.
No, the migrants are *hiding* in *lorries*.
Do please keep up!
In fact, the Australian model of which you spoke provides no
comparison.
The problem is that these migrants are hiding in trucks, in France,
and
they
aren't found until they reach the UK.
Ah! The solution is hidden in that last sentence.
Really? Care to unveil that solution that you imagine you have found?
Seek and ye shall find!
You invite me to explore your imagination? Wishful thinking!
Okay, I'll give you a hint: "...these MIGRANTS are HIDING in TRUCKS,
in FRANCE, and they aren't found UNTIL they reach the UK."
Actually, that was five hints.
And how does the Australian model help deal with that scenario? I'll tell
you - it doesn't. The Australian model prevents some migrants (ie boat
people) getting to Australia. It does nothing at all for those migrants
that do get to Australia (eg by air).
How many illegal migrants get to Australia by air, then?
Quite a few. They then claim asylum.
And if they don't get it, what happens to them?
They are sent to Calais.
Eh? From Australia? How do theyget from an Australian detention centre
all the way to Calais, France unaided?
Osmosis.
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
Post by Pelican
Post by MM
(Or by boat, for that matter.)
None, although there are some whom arrived previously.
Well, there ya go!
If you say so.
I was just remarking on the fallibility of your argument.
No, you were not.
I was. I can do it again if you like -- by quoting you on how
applicants denied asylum in Australia get to Calais, France.

You said:

"Osmosis"

But never mind, it's the school hols soon and you can go out and play!

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2015-06-26 13:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
Juan Carr
2015-06-26 17:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
And the Mayor of Calais is adamant that the problem only exists because of "Britain's over-generous benefits system" (his words).

The bottom line is simple: we have to remove the incentive that makes these people want to traverse a dozen countries to come here; we can't make the country they left any better (50 years of foreign aid and handouts have proved that) so.........we have make our own country worse in their eyes, by removing the very incentives that attract them here.

We all know how to do this and what action it takes, but is there a Government (of any colour) that has the cojones?
MM
2015-06-27 08:58:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
And the Mayor of Calais is adamant that the problem only exists because of
"Britain's over-generous benefits system" (his words).
The bottom line is simple: we have to remove the incentive that makes these
people want to traverse a dozen countries to come here; we can't make the
country they left any better (50 years of foreign aid and handouts have
proved that) so.........we have make our own country worse in their eyes,
by removing the very incentives that attract them here.
And how long before any such incentive changes were felt back in the
home countries of these people? It would take years, wouldn't it? And
every *day* the problem is getting worse.
Post by Juan Carr
We all know how to do this and what action it takes, but is there a Government
(of any colour) that has the cojones?
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?

What would Britain *actually* do? Yesterday (say) we were in the EU.
Today, we've left. So today, according to UKIP, we would have total
autonomy to do whatever we like.

What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?

MM
Juan Carr
2015-06-27 13:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.

Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.

Now, how difficult was that?
m***@btopenworld.com
2015-06-27 13:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Juan Carr
2015-06-27 13:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Are they carved in stone or something?
m***@btopenworld.com
2015-06-27 18:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan Carr
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Are they carved in stone or something?
They do take up a great deal of Parliamentary time.
anorak trainspotter nerd
2015-06-27 18:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Are they carved in stone or something?
They do take up a great deal of Parliamentary time.
If we were out of the EU, according to the "stay in" know-alls, we would have no trade with them, so there would be no lorries full of 'cheap and nasty EU crap produce' to jump onto when the media ignorants have paid them money to provide us with some silly footage for 24 hour news braindeadcasts..
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
m***@btopenworld.com
2015-06-27 20:26:08 UTC
Permalink
If we were out of the EU, according to the "stay in" know-alls, we would have no trade with them, so there would be no lorries full of 'cheap and nasty EU crap produce' to jump onto when the media ignorants have paid them money to provide us with some silly footage for 24 hour news braindeadcasts..
Great! No BMWs, no VWs, No Audis, Not even any Mini Coopers, No Fiats. No Renaults, no Seats. or Skodas, Volvos, Mercedes,

No Dutch/Danish Bacon, French/Dutch cheese, French/Dutch/German/Spanish wine, No Olive oil from the Med, No Sunflower oil, nor Soya cooking oil,

Have I missed anything? Probably!

How are we going to manage to spend our money?

It wasn't only your liver that was buggered up by all that booze was it?
MM
2015-06-28 09:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by anorak trainspotter nerd
If we were out of the EU, according to the "stay in" know-alls, we would have no trade with them, so there would be no lorries full of 'cheap and nasty EU crap produce' to jump onto when the media ignorants have paid them money to provide us with some silly footage for 24 hour news braindeadcasts..
Great! No BMWs, no VWs, No Audis, Not even any Mini Coopers, No Fiats. No Renaults, no Seats. or Skodas, Volvos, Mercedes,
No Dutch/Danish Bacon, French/Dutch cheese, French/Dutch/German/Spanish wine, No Olive oil from the Med, No Sunflower oil, nor Soya cooking oil,
Have I missed anything? Probably!
How are we going to manage to spend our money?
It wasn't only your liver that was buggered up by all that booze was it?
The list of goods we import from Europe is very long indeed. Note that
I said "Europe" and not specifically the EU. When we buy products from
far and wide, they are often shipped first to somewhere in Europe, and
then on to the UK. Not all goods come by truck, of course. But no
trucks of any kind would clear supermarket shelves in just a few days.

MM
JNugent
2015-06-27 13:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.

The Bill could contain a clause which would run something like:

"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
to persons present in the United Kingdom, from the commencement date:

(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);

(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
MM
2015-06-28 09:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.

Got any other incisive comments?

MM
JNugent
2015-06-28 09:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?

Show your working out, please.

Or be regarded as blowing hot air (again).
MM
2015-06-29 10:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
Post by JNugent
Or be regarded as blowing hot air (again).
You won't need to blow hot air over the next few days. Europe will be
doing it in our direction, all the way from North Africa to accompany
the migrants in case they feel homesick.

MM
JNugent
2015-06-29 22:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?

Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
Pelican
2015-06-30 07:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of
midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid
to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of
tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for
political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
You are an optimist.
MM
2015-06-30 12:25:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:16:53 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by JNugent
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
You are an optimist.
Well, I looked at several online lists of synonyms, but that isn't one
for idiot.

MM
Pelican
2015-06-30 23:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:16:53 +1000, "Pelican"
Post by Pelican
Post by JNugent
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
You are an optimist.
Well, I looked at several online lists of synonyms, but that isn't one
for idiot.
You needed a dictionary.
MM
2015-06-30 12:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?

MM
JNugent
2015-06-30 14:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).

What did you THINK I would do with it?
MM
2015-07-01 09:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!

(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)

MM
JNugent
2015-07-01 14:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.

It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.

Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.

It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.

We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
MM
2015-07-02 09:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.
It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.
Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.
It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.
We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
You've completely lost me there, I'm afraid. Did any of that rant have
anything to do with the question in the topic title?

MM
JNugent
2015-07-02 10:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.
It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.
Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.
It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.
We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
You've completely lost me there, I'm afraid.
What a surprise.

But you often develop an absence of understanding when you are stuck for
argument.
Post by MM
Did any of that rant have
anything to do with the question in the topic title?
The discussion ceased to be about the thread title (has it ever actually
been about that?) some time ago.

This little sub-thread has been about your unsupported assertion that
unless foreigners resident in the UK are paid billions of pounds in UK
taxpayers' money (by way of benefits and tax credits), the economy will
collapse and there will be "a run on the pound".

And it was still about that until you started to try to change the subject.
MM
2015-07-03 10:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.
It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.
Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.
It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.
We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
You've completely lost me there, I'm afraid.
What a surprise.
But you often develop an absence of understanding when you are stuck for
argument.
Post by MM
Did any of that rant have
anything to do with the question in the topic title?
The discussion ceased to be about the thread title (has it ever actually
been about that?) some time ago.
This little sub-thread has been about your unsupported assertion that
unless foreigners resident in the UK are paid billions of pounds in UK
taxpayers' money (by way of benefits and tax credits), the economy will
collapse and there will be "a run on the pound".
And it was still about that until you started to try to change the subject.
On the contrary, it was still about what Britain would do if outside
the EU about the migrant situation at Calais, and I keep on trying, as
now, to bring you back to the subject.

In fact, the last time I posted I asked you: "Did any of that rant
have anything to do with the question in the topic title?"

Why aren't you listening?

MM
JNugent
2015-07-03 11:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.
It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.
Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.
It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.
We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
You've completely lost me there, I'm afraid.
What a surprise.
But you often develop an absence of understanding when you are stuck for
argument.
Post by MM
Did any of that rant have
anything to do with the question in the topic title?
The discussion ceased to be about the thread title (has it ever actually
been about that?) some time ago.
This little sub-thread has been about your unsupported assertion that
unless foreigners resident in the UK are paid billions of pounds in UK
taxpayers' money (by way of benefits and tax credits), the economy will
collapse and there will be "a run on the pound".
And it was still about that until you started to try to change the subject.
On the contrary, it was still about what Britain would do if outside
the EU about the migrant situation at Calais, and I keep on trying, as
now, to bring you back to the subject.
In fact, the last time I posted I asked you: "Did any of that rant
have anything to do with the question in the topic title?"
Why aren't you listening?
Who was it who wrote (in response to a suggestion that foreigners should
be denied UK social security):

"And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy"?

Because that is the point *I* have been discussing. And at one time
(until you realised the ground was too soft for you), so were you.

Go on, try to change the subject again...
Post by MM
MM
MM
2015-07-04 08:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very difficult it would require the amendment of various Finance Acts.
Nothing like as difficult as it might sound.
"Notwithstanding any previous enactment which purports to provide for
the payment of benefits [within the meaning of the xxx xxxx xxxxx Act]
(a) no benefits shall be payable to or in respect of persons of a
prescribed description (see Schedule 1);
(b) any previous enactment, or any part thereof, which purports to
provide for the payment of persons within the meaning of sub-clause (a)
shall stand repealed and of no effect.
And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy.
Would it?
Show your working out, please.
No need to show working out for 2 + 2 = 4
That's your idea of proof, is it?
Please demonstrate the link (in your imagination) between the Exchequer
saving all that money and a run on the pound.
What will you do with the information?
Assess whether you are right... or wrong (of course).
What did you THINK I would do with it?
Absolutely nothing. And I was right!
Since you have provided no explanation of your unsupported assertion
that denying foreigners the hard-earned money paid in taxes by the
British will create an economic collapse in the UK, you are, for once,
right.
It is not possible to do anything with information that you are unable
or unwilling to provide.
Well done.
Post by MM
(There, that saved a lot of time, didn't it?)
It certainly saves *you* the effort of trying to justify the
unjustifiable. And it's interesting to have it confirmed that you derive
all your arguments from the School of Because I Bloody Well Say So, with
a leavening of It Just Is That's All.
It's so refreshing not to have to wade through yards of facts and logic.
We *never* have to fear either of those from you.
You've completely lost me there, I'm afraid.
What a surprise.
But you often develop an absence of understanding when you are stuck for
argument.
Post by MM
Did any of that rant have
anything to do with the question in the topic title?
The discussion ceased to be about the thread title (has it ever actually
been about that?) some time ago.
This little sub-thread has been about your unsupported assertion that
unless foreigners resident in the UK are paid billions of pounds in UK
taxpayers' money (by way of benefits and tax credits), the economy will
collapse and there will be "a run on the pound".
And it was still about that until you started to try to change the subject.
On the contrary, it was still about what Britain would do if outside
the EU about the migrant situation at Calais, and I keep on trying, as
now, to bring you back to the subject.
In fact, the last time I posted I asked you: "Did any of that rant
have anything to do with the question in the topic title?"
Why aren't you listening?
Who was it who wrote (in response to a suggestion that foreigners should
"And this would cause an immediate run on the pound, closely followed
by mass unemployment of indigenous Britons and a collapse in the
British economy"?
Because that is the point *I* have been discussing. And at one time
(until you realised the ground was too soft for you), so were you.
Go on, try to change the subject again...
Post by MM
MM
Oh, not YOU again!

(It's like a plague of thunderflies.)

MM

MM
2015-06-28 09:15:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very, very difficult, and costly to British taxpapyers, who would be
required to spend a fortune in legal fees defending several million
claimants who currently have the legal right to receive benefits.

As a result, the British economy would nosedive and the pound would
come under threat.

Got any other bright ideas?

MM
Juan Carr
2015-06-28 09:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very, very difficult, and costly to British taxpapyers, who would be
required to spend a fortune in legal fees defending several million
claimants who currently have the legal right to receive benefits.
As a result, the British economy would nosedive and the pound would
come under threat.
Got any other bright ideas?
MM
Ok, try:

An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens arriving in Britain until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.

There you go, legal problems averted.
MM
2015-06-29 10:29:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
Hang about! You say we all know how to do this, but what is "this"?
What would we do *today*, not in years to come after the very lengthy
process of removing incentives?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
Additionally, until the same criteria have been met, no claims for political asylum will be entertained.
Now, how difficult was that?
Very, very difficult, and costly to British taxpapyers, who would be
required to spend a fortune in legal fees defending several million
claimants who currently have the legal right to receive benefits.
As a result, the British economy would nosedive and the pound would
come under threat.
Got any other bright ideas?
MM
An emergency meeting of Parliament tonight to say that as of midnight Sunday, **no** benefits of **any** description will be paid to non-indigenous citizens arriving in Britain until they have contributed five years of tax and NI contributions.
There you go, legal problems averted.
An emergency meeting? How will that get a majority, then?

MM
Juan Carr
2015-06-30 17:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
An emergency meeting? How will that get a majority, then?
MM
A three line whip?

You DO realise Cameron has an outright majority?

You're flapping about like a kid in a swimming pool who can't swim.
MM
2015-07-01 09:14:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:20:59 -0700 (PDT), Juan Carr
Post by Juan Carr
Post by MM
An emergency meeting? How will that get a majority, then?
MM
A three line whip?
"In July 2012 91 Conservative MPs voted against Lords reform, defying
a three-line whip and kiboshing Nick CleggÂ’s dream of reform to the
upper chamber."

"In August 2013 vote for British air strikes in Syria was defeated in
a Commons vote after a rebellion of 31 Tory backbenchers and
opposition from the Labour Party."

"On 31 October 2012 Mark Reckless, the Conservative MP who has since
defected to Ukip was credited with masterminding the coalitionÂ’s first
Commons defeat leading 53 Tory rebels to join with Labour to back a
motion demanding a real terms cut in the European Union budget."

"The Prime Minister suffered one of his biggest rebellions over gay
marriage with 134 of his MPs voting against in May last year."

"In October 2011 a total 79 of his MPs voted for a Commons motion
calling for a referendum on BritainÂ’s relationship with the EU, even
though Mr Cameron had ordered his party to oppose it."

"In February 2014 the Prime Minister was faced with a 86-strong
rebellion on an amendment to the Immigration Bill."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11220885/David-Camerons-7-biggest-Tory-rebellions.html

MM
MM
2015-06-27 08:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
Now that is the first sensible answer. It would of course raise all
sorts of other international incidents, but at least it would cut the
migrants from Calais in one fell swoop. (Of course, the tunnel would
have to be closed, too.)

In uk.legal some have suggested what effectively amounts to
implementing concentration camps here, but that is NOT controlling the
situation *at Calais*.

MM
Etaoin Shrdlu
2015-06-27 09:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
Now that is the first sensible answer. It would of course raise all
sorts of other international incidents, but at least it would cut the
migrants from Calais in one fell swoop. (Of course, the tunnel would
have to be closed, too.)
In uk.legal some have suggested what effectively amounts to
implementing concentration camps here, but that is NOT controlling the
situation *at Calais*.
MM
As long as they have reached here, there will always be some bleeding
hearts that want to let them out. Probably led by the BBC.
m***@btopenworld.com
2015-06-27 12:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
Now that is the first sensible answer. It would of course raise all
sorts of other international incidents, but at least it would cut the
migrants from Calais in one fell swoop. (Of course, the tunnel would
have to be closed, too.)
Better still that's French owned. It's only when the tight arsed buggers start to lose money that they will do anything about it and quickly too!

So long as they are allowed to shift responsibility across the channel they will barely lift a finger.

There are plenty of ports on either side of the channel that could be used as alternatives and would no doubt welcome the extra revenue.
MM
2015-06-28 09:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
Now that is the first sensible answer. It would of course raise all
sorts of other international incidents, but at least it would cut the
migrants from Calais in one fell swoop. (Of course, the tunnel would
have to be closed, too.)
Better still that's French owned. It's only when the tight arsed buggers start to lose money that they will do anything about it and quickly too!
So long as they are allowed to shift responsibility across the channel they will barely lift a finger.
There are plenty of ports on either side of the channel that could be used as alternatives and would no doubt welcome the extra revenue.
I used Dunkirk and Ostend frequently in the 1970s. Zeebrugge not so
much, and Antwerp only once. The crossings take longer from all four,
which means higher costs to be passed on to consumers.

MM
James Hammerton
2015-06-27 16:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
The Port of Dover could be closed to Calais Ro-Ro traffic. That would focus minds back in La belle France. Resolution of the problem should take less than 24 hours once the French realised that they were expected to do something about situations occurring within their own territory.
What prevents this course of action being taken right now?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
Follow on twitter: @JamesAHammerton
John
2015-06-26 15:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.

John.
Vidcapper
2015-06-26 16:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.

Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Basil Jet
2015-06-27 08:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than
accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
North Africa? What's wrong with Kerguelen Island?
Basil Jet
2015-06-27 08:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than
accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
Then one of their descendants could write a book called "Roots 2" about
how his ancestors were captured in Europe and forced to travel to a far
of continent where they'd have to actually work.
James Hammerton
2015-06-27 16:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than
accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
OK, let's say we do that. How often do you think the tactic would work
before the migrants get wise to it?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
Follow on twitter: @JamesAHammerton
Joe The Dago
2015-06-27 16:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Vidcapper
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
OK, let's say we do that. How often do you think the tactic would work
before the migrants get wise to it?
Regards,
James
Why should immigrants climb abroad a boat that is docked in the UK?
Vidcapper
2015-06-27 17:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe The Dago
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Vidcapper
Post by John
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
I assume the French would help them on their way, rather than accomodating
the British Border Agency and other of our officials in attempts to stop
them getting to the UK.
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
OK, let's say we do that. How often do you think the tactic would work
before the migrants get wise to it?
Regards,
James
Why should immigrants climb abroad a boat that is docked in the UK?
Who said the boat would be docked at in the UK?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Vidcapper
2015-06-27 17:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Vidcapper
Perhaps we could copy the notion of a bait car.
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
OK, let's say we do that. How often do you think the tactic would work
before the migrants get wise to it?
Given that deterrence is the whole point, hopefully ASAP!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Juan Carr
2015-06-27 16:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Have a nice empty boat for them to climb into, but once they're on it,
lock it down, and sail it back to north Africa...
Do I burn forever in the fires of Hades for suggesting that halfway back a UK submarine torpedoes the vessel?

All those dark-skinned individuals thrashing around in the water, yelling "Allahu <blub, gurgle> Akhbar".
t***@gmail.com
2015-06-27 12:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
The proposal would be more stringent border controls.
MM
2015-06-28 09:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
The proposal would be more stringent border controls.
Goodness! That is really going to impress those migrants in Calais!

MM
Roger Dewhurst
2015-07-02 00:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by MM
Let's assume for a moment that Britain has withdrawn from the EU.
However, the migrants continue to gather in ever larger numbers at
Calais. Their attempts to climb into trucks get ever more daring and
threatening.
How will our NOT being an EU member change things?
MM
The proposal would be more stringent border controls.
All trucks should have the exhaust gas vented into the trailers. All potential handholds beneath trucks and trailers should be wrapped with razor wire. The latter is so easy that I am surprised that companies do not do that anyway.
Loading...