French border warning: is it just blackmail?

[WinnieTheW0rm]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463

The French Finance minister has said that if UK votes to leave, the French will end border controls at Calais and allow people to leave France unchecked.

Are his comments representative of French governmental thinking?

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Can we not strengthen up our borders so they cannot get in.

Indeed we could ring Britain in 20' of razor wires,.and have the army patrol our borders with dogs and guns.

If we are not in the EU could we not change our legislation to protect ourselves from the migrants and do not have to accept them.

We would have to withdraw from a few more treaties to be able to refuse refugees, but perfectly doable. Refusing entry to all migrants perfectly possible. We will however become an international pariah, and other countries will treat our citizens accordingly.

[nearlyhellokitty]

Also springing did you read the report I linked to? Of course it's a govt report no one pretended otherwise but take a look through at the different scenarios and tell me if you think it's factually incorrect. I also linked to it because someone earlier said that the government hadn't given their view of what might happen.

For what it's worth I think it's fairly clear that if we vote to leave we can expect a period of uncertainty and mess for at least 2 years and probably nearer 5-10 while everything is renegotiated only for us to end up in a worse position with less access to the EU market and less say over what our companies then have to deal with in Europe or indeed less ability to easily travel and get jobs.

[nearlyhellokitty]

Springing - on the implications for UK residents all I said was that UK residents could not count on retaining all their current benefits and you turn that into 'war crime' ?? Things like unemployment benefit. Exactly what the UK wants to do with migrants.

And yes sure the lucky few highly skilled new UK expats can get jobs anywhere but it will not be as smooth as it currently is and there will be a lot of inconvenience. There's no benefit to leaving the EU from this perspective. I see what happens with skilled US job seekers and it's a mess.

And I don't know what Gerald Durrells family has to do with it. They didn't have pensions, unemployment, access to healthcare - just their own money, and it has always been true that if you have enough money you can settle anywhere. It has always been the case that people lived in other countries but the difference is that in the current scenario we, as UK citizens, have the same access to jobs, life etc as other citizens of that country in the EU. If we leave we will have to renegotiate everything

[nearlyhellokitty]

Springing - for ttip you think our govt won't do that if we're not in the EU? And that we have less influence on trade when we are negotiating as part of the biggest single market?

Also when it comes to exports we won't have a choice on copying rules.

I know very well that the UK is one of the most influential stakeholders at EU level in terms of negotiating on legislation. I have no idea where you get your information on that

[Daisyonthegreen]

The French Republic signed up to Schengen in 1995,and although they may not have foreseen what may occur they are still completely responsible for their agreement.
Hence migrants,economic or otherwise have crossed many borders passing safe countries to get to the UK.
Normally safety is sought in the first country,Calais is now as it is because migrants have headed there bypassing safety in other countries.
Albeit the French in Calais may be annoyed they must address that to their Government who signed Schengen.We are not signatories to that agreement.That is why the French Republic is culpable and responsible.We have generously given them £17 million to help Calais,generous considering we are not signatories to Shengen.

[AuntieFlaubert]

It seems to me that the OUT people just want out for a gut feeling without sound reasons.
Their only response to hard questiond is to repeat "Project Fear!"

[SpringingIntoAction]

JassyRadlett

I obviously missed out a lot of steps but that doesn’t detract from the fact that the European parliament does not initiate law.

Nearlyhellokitty


Springing can you reference the council 72 out of 72 overruling? This is totally wrong

Here you are

www.peterlilley.co.uk/questions/1873/oral-question-eu-council

^Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): For decades, British Ministers who have had involvement with Europe—I include myself in this—have been tempted to exaggerate the influence we bring to bear and conceal our inability to achieve British interests. Is that why it took a freedom of information request to establish that over the last two decades, Britain has voted against 72 measures in the European Council and been defeated 72 times, and that the pace of defeat is accelerating? If we make the mistake of taking the risk of remaining in the EU, how many defeats does the Prime Minister expect over the next two decades?

The Prime Minister: I do not for one minute underestimate the frustrations and challenges of being a member of this organisation. The research that I have seen—perhaps I will write to my right hon. Friend with a copy of it—states that deep analysis of whether a country achieves its position shows that Britain does so in 90% of cases, which even, I think, outranks the Germans. I have seen for myself that when we work hard and form alliances, we can get things done.^

Honestly you can criticise the process but it seems to me you don't have the full picture

Not very helpful to the discussion, especially when you are asking me to provide information

Also springing did you read the report I linked to? Of course it's a govt report no one pretended otherwise but take a look through at the different scenarios and tell me if you think it's factually incorrect.

Yes, it’s factually incorrect.

Drinkstoomuchcoffee

I was responding to someone about the power of the European Parliament. How far back would you like me to go each time in explaining the structures and processes of the EU? Shall we start with selection / election of each of the main roles within the Union? Shall we detail eaxh meeting held by each political party to select its prospective candidates for MEP? Shall we attempt to belittle each other or shall we have a grown up sensible discussion? We could start that by agreeing that shorthand is accepted?
Even Peter Mandelson said yesterday that the EP needed to have much more democratic power.

Woodhill

Can we not strengthen up our borders so they cannot get in. If we are not in the EU could we not change our legislation to protect ourselves from the migrants and do not have to accept them.

Of course we could. Migrants should claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. For migrants arriving from Calais, they should have claimed asylum in France, under the Dublin Agreement, but Mrs Merkel decided to suspend the Dublin Agreement. We have a natural barrier between us and the Continent called the English Channel and North sea. Of course, the REMAIN camp will now insist that all the migrants could go to Ireland and cross the border into Northern Ireland.

[AuntieFlaubert]

Of course, the REMAIN camp will now insist that all the migrants could go to Ireland and cross the border into Northern Ireland.

And you would prevent that how?

[thebiscuitindustry]

And this trope about Brussels just deciding everything with no democracy.. so boring. We elect our MEPs to Brussels

In Westminster, our elected MPs propose our laws. The European Commission are unelected, yet they propose EU laws which affect us. We can't change who's on the Commission, whereas there are elections allowing Britain to choose its own government every few years.

In January 2015, the anti-austerity party Syriza won Greece's general election. However, Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said: "To suggest that everything is going to change because there's a new government in Athens is to mistake dreams for reality… There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties."

John Redwood comments on this in his article The EU doesn’t like democracy very much. In another article How the EU removes normal democratic government Redwood says "As we have seen in Greece, it does not matter what economic policy the voters or the winning parties want, they end up with EU policy which does not change."

Juncker's predecessor, José Manuel Barroso, said "Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong" (see this Telegraph article from 2010 The EU is an antidote to democratic governments, argues President Barroso)

The Rt Hon. Andrew Tyrie MP said: "the UK needs protection from mission creep – the ratchet effect of EU law making. There needs to be a two way street. Amendment or repeal of EU rules, not least to reduce the burden on business, should be in the EU’s bloodstream. It isn’t at the moment."

In his article If you love Europe you should hate the EU Brendan O' Neill explains why he believes the EU is undemocratic:

"It is a union of European elites who want to avoid their peoples. The EU is the mechanism through which national governments outsource various powers and decision-making processes to distant, aloof, mostly unaccountable bodies like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice."

Later O'Neill says "Brussels installs unelected leaders, blackmails elected prime ministers, describes democratic referendums as a “danger”."

Britain joined a Common Market but has found itself in an EU that plans to become a federal Europe. We've lost our fishing grounds and farming policy, we've bailed out the Euro even though we didn't join it, and Merkel plans to create an EU army, which Cameron doesn't want.

As it says in this article "The EU already has a president and a foreign office, a parliament and a civil service, a currency and a supreme court, a passport and a driving licence, a national anthem and a flag."

The UK doesn't seem to be able to influence much in the EU at all. We're routinely outvoted, and Cameron hasn't been able to reform the EU as hoped.

[JassyRadlett]

That's not what you said, though, is it? A bit of a disingenuous omission to leave out the bit where the UK's ministers are directly involved. Anyone would think you are trying to portray the EU as less democratic than it is.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Nearlyhellokitty

Springing - for ttip you think our govt won't do that if we're not in the EU?

If we stay in the EU we will get TTIP.

If we leave the EU Cameron cannot pass TTIP as it stands because TTIP is an EU/US deal negotiated between the EU and US. Cameron would have to renegotiate a UK/US version of TTIP and he could not do that before the 2020 election.
At the 2020 election each UK political party can state its stance on whether it would seek a TTIP- type deal with the US. We then have the opportunity to vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal. Personally I would vote for any party whose manifesto was anti a TTIP deal.

But the important thing is that we would get a choice.

Stay In and you get TTIP
Leave and return the decision on whether we get a TTIP-type deal to our domestic parliament.

And that we have less influence on trade when we are negotiating as part of the biggest single market?

The UK's interests in any EU negotiated trade deal are not of paramount interest to the negotiators, who are negotiating on behalf of a multitude of different member countries, in a one-size-fits-all deal. Don't confuse size with suitability.

A deal negotiated by the UK with a trading partner would mutually agreeable to both parties but would have the UK's interests as paramount.

[nearlyhellokitty]

springy = but we achieved our position 90 per cent of the time. doens't seem like a lack of influence to me. also the last sentence by the PM was:

"The other point I make to my right hon. Friend is that if we are outside the single market, the same countries will write the rules, but without us. We will have to comply with them when we sell into Europe, but will have absolutely no say over what they are. That, to me, is the illusion of sovereignty, rather than real sovereignty"

also do elaborate per scenario why you think it's factually incorrect.

nb not sure where you are going with your thing on the EP and Peter Mandelson - over the past few decades the European Parliament has progressively gained more powers.

[JassyRadlett]

In Westminster, our elected MPs propose our laws. The European Commission are unelected, yet they propose EU laws which affect us. We can't change who's on the Commission, whereas there are elections allowing Britain to choose its own government every few years

Er, no. The government, consisting in the Westminster system of MPs and appointed Lords, propose the laws. Not all ministers are elected.

The difference is that the EU has more of a US-style system with separation between the legislature and the executive. In place of ministers, there are commissioners who are appointed by the democratically elected member state governments.

We get to choose who votes on the laws in the European Parliament, we elect the government that appoints our commissioner, and we have a seat at the table in the Council where QMV exists - quite apart from the negotiation that happens long before anything gets to a vote to get good results.

The 2030 climate package agreed in 2014 is a great example of the strength of the EU working together. Better for Britain because the way the targets are shared out means a more level playing field for British businesses. Fundamental to achieving the Paris agreement. And largely designed by the UK, working with the Commission ahead of their formal proposals and building a consensus that isolated those countries like Poland who wanted a weak deal. It dragged the reluctant countries to the standard set by the best.

[thebiscuitindustry]

Yes the Lords are unelected, that's true.

But the fact remains that we didn't vote to join the EU, we can't vote the Commission out, and there's no-one that we elect to the EU who can propose EU laws.

And if EU laws trump British law then that removes power and choice from our own country's elected government. British citizens don't have any say in the forming of EU legislation.

In his article Understanding the European Union's Facade Democracy Wolfgang Kowalsky says the European Parliament has "the habit of adopting European legislation in a single reading, in a trialogue between Commission, EP and Council behind closed doors – without taking into account comments from outside the European institutions."

[Drinkstoomuchcoffee]

Springing: your kind of "shorthand" would support the assertion that in the UK the Queen is responsible for all legislation. Let's just miss out all the other steps, shall we? Do we think that is an accurate picture? Or do we think that those who make that kind of point have a dishonest agenda?

Where the out campaign is saying that the UK has no say in EU legislation, missing out all the steps where the UK frames and shapes EU legislation is plain dishonest.

But what do you expect from a front row made up of Boris (shameless opportunist), Nigel and George Galloway? George Galloway! Really!

[Mistigri]

To get back on topic, just a bit of French perspective on yesterday's news ...

Hollande didn't "threaten" to end border cooperation; he simply agreed with Cameron that this is a possible consequence of a brexit.

Hollande is a politician facing reelection in 2017. There are competing schools of thought in France about the Le Touquet Agreement which governs border controls between northern French ports and the UK. This is not an EU treaty and many French politicians in all three main parties, but especially the FN, would like to scrap it (even without a brexit, though a brexit makes scrapping it much more feasible). They would get considerable support from voters living in the Nord-Pas De Calais region for this policy.

In the government, there some senior figures who think that scrapping it would worsen the problem for France by increasing the flow of migrants. Others think that's irrelevant because none of the migrants will wish to stay in France; they will cross the border and claim asylum on the UK side. Outside the Dublin agreement, it would no longer be a simple matter to return them, especially if they had avoided registering in France.

The result wouldn't necessarily be a jungle in Dover, but there would be a huge increase in asylum claims. This could be mitigated by placing all the onus of border control on the train and ferry companies ie by fining them heavily if they transport asylum seekers. There would be a cost for this of course - I suspect it would be the end of booze cruises and cheap trips to Eurodisney.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Migrants should claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. For migrants arriving from Calais, they should have claimed asylum in France, under the Dublin Agreement, but Mrs Merkel decided to suspend the Dublin Agreement

I think you are confusing migrants and refugees?

[thebiscuitindustry]

Hollande didn't "threaten" to end border cooperation; he simply agreed with Cameron that this is a possible consequence of a brexit.

Not everyone thinks that is a coincidence.

From www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463

Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin said "propaganda" was "being produced by other European governments at the request of the prime minister to try to scare people away from voting to leave".

He added: "We pay a great deal of money into the EU and it subsidises a great deal of French farming. Surprise surprise, they don't want us to leave the EU."

[Mistigri]

It's irrelevant whether they should or shouldn't have claimed asylum in France (though I should point out that a number of them, mostly unaccompanied minors with relatives in the UK, have a clear right to asylum in the UK). Theorerically most of them should have claimed asylum in Greece anyway.

If Le Touquet goes and there is a flood of asylum seekers across the channel, then the UK will need to process their applications and if they fail, return them not to France or Greece, but to their country of origin, if that can be established and assuming it is not a country in an active state of war.

[Mistigri]

biscuitindustry and not everyone has the foggiest clue about French politics, it seems.

Calls to end UK border controls in France have been going on for a lot longer than the last few weeks.

The facts are:

• it could easily be done (wouldn't require the 2 year negotiation period that leaving the EU involves as it's not an EU treaty)
  
• it would be popular with a large chunk of the french population and with a number of senior French politicians
  
• French politicians gave their eyes firmly on the 2017 elections; the referendum is a sideshow here, no one except expats really cares about it. Some politican will make politically-expedient promises even if they are not in France's best interests.

[Chalalala]

of course it's not a coincidence they are voicing the possibility today of all days. But does it mean it's all empty rhetoric? no, it doesn't.

as Mistigri explained, there are very good reasons why French politicians would actually want to do this.

[Mistigri]

There are good political reasons why politicians might want to do it (I don't personally believe that it would be in France's best interests).

A fight with the UK over border controls could well be politically expedient for the PS, which has seen a drift of its less-educated, white voters towards the FN.

[Chalalala]

Oh, of course it's not a good idea. But as we know, politicians often do what they think is best for their own political interest, not what they think is best for the country (looking at you, Boris)

the PS is left-wing only in name these days, and they need all the populist votes they can get.

[nearlyhellokitty]

so Springing piqued my interest on the UK's record in the Council.
Here's an overview of what they voted for and against:

www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-council-votes-term8-united-kingdom.html

An example of something they voted against and lost :
www.techworld.com/news/networking/european-lawmakers-prep-vote-on-ecall-3607988/

"Carmakers will be given specifications and clearer definitions of the mandatory safer driving technology they must install as part of a new European law, as soon as this month.

The eCall system, which is proposed to automatically alert and transmit location data the European emergency services number - 112 - in the event of a crash, will be voted on when the European Parliament next meets in Strasbourg on April 27, according to a plenary draft."

Don't know about you but suspect it's a good thing to have eCall in cars!

[nearlyhellokitty]

Also the reason Springy piqued my interest is that my experience is that the UK mostly gets what it wants and is one of the most effective MS at lobbying for their interests. More or less what Simon Hix says in his datablog analysis of the Council, EP etc.: www.theguardian.com/profile/simon-hix.