Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Calais - the option Cameron won't take

As both UKIP and UK Hauliers called for the army to be deployed at Dover to screen out illegal migrants hiding in vehicles, there are several reasons why Cameron will not take this option;

1. OK, so they succeed in finding hundreds of migrants hidden in vehicles. What do they do with them? They can't be immediately sent back if they make an asylum claim - they need housing, feeding and care. And after a couple of weeks when the numbers are in the thousands and we need to build new detention centres, what then? No, far better, as far as Cameron is concerned, to allow those that make it into Dover to slip in quietly. 

2. And no, the French would never stand for the British army being stationed in Calais to do the screening

3. The army are efficient enough not only to find the migrants hiding in freight wagons, but the hundreds a day more being carried in the boots of private cars for reward; for unemployed Asian lads from the Midlands, smuggling in migrants at £1,000 a pop has become quite an earner. Well, they're not going to Calais to stock up on booze, are they? Again, exposing the known problem to public view is less preferable to Cameron than keeping it quiet letting the illegals in.  

4. Swarms of human rights lawyers / ambulance chasers will descend on Dover ready to blame the lads for every miscarriage, cut, bruise or hurt feeling and back it up with legal claims. 

5. Having our lads stop the poor migrants coming in doesn't make as good TV as rescuing the sods from the sea etc. - best avoided altogether.  

6. And having the army find large numbers who get through Calais is also bad news - news editors will back-calculate how many have already got in, and blame Cameron for a full five years' worth. 

So I can confidently predict the outcome will be (a) to ask the French politely to do a bit more policing (b) to deploy the Territorial Voluntary Reserve National Barrier to join its regular cousin in Calais (c) er, that's it.


DtP said...

Geez, a bit of depressing real politik there Radders.

patently said...

2. And no, the French would never stand for the British army being stationed in Calais to do the screening

So? How are they going to stop us? With their army?

I suspect you're right, though.

r said...

If the Frogs won't allow us to do their job, then we simply throw out their police this end and institute thorough border checks this end.

I fear that points 1 & 6 are the most telling.

How I utterly despise and loathe our political class - complete scum!

Anonymous said...

New Labour, New Britain


Ed P said...

We sold Calais to the French in 1660-ish. Perhaps it's time to buy it back (for the same meagre sum of course)?

Poptart said...

I must be missing something.

What are the 1,500 migrants storming the Calais entrance to the Tunnel trying to achieve?

Are they intending to hijack a complete train?

Are they intending to WALK through the 31 miles of the Tunnel?

We are told that they were 'organised'. Organised by whom? The Mayor of Calais perhaps.

Raedwald said...

Poptart - they have worked out that competing against eachother by fighting for the best boarding opportunities on the approach roads is less effective that all the rival groups storming the terminal together; I don't know what the success figures are, but say 10% from the mass storming get aboard trucks to hide AFTER the security checks as opposed to a lower %age getting on before and making it through the security checks. Social psychologists will be delighted at the display of 'co-operation through conflict' as Kropotkin put it.

Brightside Bob said...

"Well, they're not going to Calais to stock up on booze, are they?"

Made my late afternoon! Cheers Radders!

Anonymous said...

"Made my late afternoon! Cheers Radders!"

An astute observation "not going to Calais to stock up on booze"...... but I am sorry, for I cannot see the funny side at all.


Certainly, there is no offence intended whatsoever, to you Sir - Brightside Bob.

Good blogpost Radders, your cynical antennae must be buzzing.

Good God though - they economic immigrants [what else are they?] are pouring in and 'we the indigenous people' the nation is stuffed full and running on empty in patience.
Soon, "rivers foaming with blood" arriving, this sort of deliberately devised nation erasing and ethnic replacement, is not going to end well and is not: something I say lightly.

Budgie said...

And, of course, when they get here they will attempt to create little Ethiopia, little Libya, etc. In this they will be ably assisted by our own establishment's cultural suicide note otherwise known as multiculturalism.

Anonymous said...

Why not pay the people traffickers not to bring them here? Work out their operating costs and pay them in arrears an equivalent of their net profits. Must be far cheaper than the collateral damage to the exchequer and economy caused by the disruption to hauliers, tourism plus bed, board and benefits for the migrants when they get here.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we recruit them to fight the Islamic State? This would give ex-soldiers work instructing them (perhaps in old Army of the Rhine camps or land leased from the French), and British arms manufacturers could then sell the arms required to them. Then they can all be shipped off to their home countries to stabilise them. Once it's all over any who have proved their loyalty and don't want to stay in Syria or wherever could be permitted to enter the UK.

andy said...

If international law says that a refugee must seek asylum in the first safe country then unless these "refugees" are French, Icelandic, Norwegian or from the Irish Republic then their claim can be automatically rejected, can it not? and if they destroy their papers simply hold them incommunicado in some facility somewhere offshore,(West Falkland maybe)until they willingly agree to return to their own country.
Its time to stop dicking around with these people and start treating them as hostile colonists not desperate refugees.

anon 2 said...

Sigh. What a pity there ever had to be a tunnel at all. It really is so unnatural.

I never quite hoped the IRA would take care of it ... I always knew they recognized it for catering to their interests.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

Put Michael Eavis in charge of security - Glasto's fence and passport system has worked well for the last few years.....

G. Tingey said...


Budgie said...

After the election I was intrigued by two strongly repeated opinions. The Labour luvvies wrung their hands and wailed "Oh, how can anyone vote Tory". Their delusion was so complete that they apparently believed they were the only ones with principles.

On the other hand, the true blues were so full of euphoria they could hardly restrain themselves - "Cameron will do this, Osborne will do that", unaware that much of what they assured each other about was actually UKIP policy, not Tory. So, equally deluded.

So we come to the immigration catastrophe unfolding before us. Will Cameron (and Osborne) do anything sensible, anything that most people want? He is not a Thatcher, so no, anything rational or patriotic is out of the window already. Cameron will talk the talk (he's good at that), then he will do nothing, or work with the EU to produce a non-workable policy with flourish. You know it makes sense.

anon 2 said...

The tinged one ...

Meconnaissance came over before our alien masters constructed the tunnel.

So did slander and defamation.

G. Tingey said...

even bigger wanker then (anon2)

As I've said elsewhere, the problem is NOT the tunnel.
It's French domestic politics & the French not applying their own rules ( What a surprise - not )