Calais migrants could end up in Dover

[allegretto]

Ironic really but the mayor of Calais has said that she no longer wants to pay/enforce the border controls on the French side of the Channel (and why should she?) Rather than fewer migrants, this result has literally opened the gates.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/calais-mayor-calls-for-migrant-camps-to-be-moved-to-britain-foll/

Yes scaryteacher, all those things are very efficient, and they exist at the pleasure of the national authorities involved.

They exist because these national authorities want to cooperate.

Goodwill is essential in international relations. The wider backdrop of years of cooperation means far more than any single agreement.

It's a good idea to maintain that goodwill.

Londonmamabychance My friends who work in Intelligence have pointed out that the tunnel is a target, but don't let that stop your fantasies that it isn't.

There has been concerns about terrorist potentially hiding among the migrant flows, and this way getting into the UK/Europe, but this is a different issue. Does not make the tunnel itself a more likely target. Anyway, the fear of terrorist coming in with migrant groups is vastly exaggerated, There has been hard intelligence that this is actually happening, terrorists hiding amongst the migrants - there was an alert about this last week. That's also how the Bataclan bombers and some of those who were involved in the Brussels bombings this year got back into Belgium from Syria. You may want to think about the ramifications of that. One of your migrants is a terrorist and gets into the tunnel. He then lays IEDs on the tracks. Either Eurostar or a eurotunnel train sets it off. Bloody carnage, potential damage to the fabric of the tunnel etc etc. Belgium has many jihadists that have gone to Syria and then come back hidden in the migrants. It takes me two hours to drive from Brussels to Dunkirk, Calais is half an hour further on...not beyond the bounds of possibility is it, given that there are no security checks between Belgium and France.

You may not think the argument stacks up, but those in the Intelligence community do, especially since Zaventem and the Brussels metro this year. Why exactly do you think that security around the tunnel has been strengthened?

Perhaps you need to look at this website belgium.usembassy.gov/security_messages.html and read the security warning dated 17/6/16. It might just make you think....

Rice We have voted to leave a supranational organisation, not declare war on the continent. I see no reason why goodwill shouldn't be maintained, especially as we are a large market for French wine.

The French should be pleased we have voted to leave; we are not standing in the way of integration any more.

Scary, I did not say that the tunnel was not a target, did I? I said that migrants passing through it does not make it more or less a target. Or do your friends who work in intelligence say that they do? If so, I'd be interested to hear how they make it more of a target.

Further, you are correct that some of the Bataclan bombers came into Belgium this way. But do you honestly think that stopping all refugees from entering Europe is a viable, ethically defensive, or even possible, solution? The way to stop terrorists is intelligence, intelligence. If we are to believe all the alerts of averted attacks, this should be working to some extent and let's all keep fingers crossed something terrible does not happen again soon. As far as I'm aware, there's no more reason to imagine someone would blow up the Eurotunnel (God forbid) than Wembley stadium or a London street or station (God forbid). Don't forget that the terrorist threat in UK have been at 'severe' which means that an attack is highly likely since 2014, so just the same as the Belgian one, despite the fact that the UK is not in Schengen and has had border controls through all this time. So apparently, those 'in the intelligence community' does not think that the UK's current border controls has made it less of a target than Belgium without border controls.

I think that the main reason security around the tunnel has been strengthened is because the UK government decided to make an extra contribution and pay for more fencing and guards to stop migrants from entering the UK and staying in France. MIGRANTS, not terrorists. The UK does not want more illegal migrants or asylum seekers, I think we're all aware of that. That added security in terms of counter terrorism could have been an added reason for this, I can't say, could well have been, but to the best of my knowledge, putting extra fences and guards that do nothing more than check a passport is not the most effective way to prevent terrorists, even though it's certainly part of it.

LondonMama You seem to have your fingers in your ears singing 'lalala'.

As we don't know who exactly the migrants are as many have destroyed their papers, then they must, ipso facto, be a security threat to the Tunnel if they get into it. Thus, it becomes more of a target (increases the risk), as we don't know that there aren't terrorists posing as migrants amongst those who try to get through. (see earlier post about the hard intelligence about terrorists using the migrants as cover).

Given that people died this year in March, in Brussels, from bombs at the airport and on the Metro, and that the Belgian authorities didn't see this coming, I am far from sanguine about the safety of the tunnel. Also given that I know people who died in those attacks, or were badly maimed, and given where the security level currently stands here in Belgium, and the fact that the Euros are on, and many will be using the tunnel to get home after the tournament finishes, then yes, I think it is a target, and one that the terrorists would like to hit to show that they can.

Kelandry you do realise that these people have made travels that have been much more dangerous than crossing the Channel don't you?
You can close the Tunnel, you can even stop all the ferries.
I'm not sure how it will help Britain (esp how will Britain export its products to the EU) but let's imagine it is.
People will just use smaller boats and smugglers, which is exactely what has already started btw.

sorry not read thread but le touquet agreement is nothing to do with the EU thats what keeps migrants at calais.

londonMama I live in Belgium, which is not the UK, and given where my dh works (and also that he was in the military until very recently), I am always aware of the threat levels, as they affect me on a daily basis.

I grew up in a military family, so living with threat levels, and checking under the car every time before we got in it, has been second nature since the 70s.

We have very good intelligence services in the UK, and we are in the Five Eyes to boot. By contrast, the European intelligence services are not as swept up, and we feed them intelligence. I think the fact that the US has a travel warning out is telling, both for Belgium and Europe at large.

We don't know that the migrants are all benign. Until we know who they are, why would we want them wandering through a large transport structure? If the migrants were willing to stop and have themselves documented, then it might be different, but many are not willing to do so. There is also the fact that wandering through the tunnel is dangerous in itself....

Kelandry you do realise that these people have made travels that have been much more dangerous than crossing the Channel don't you? Busiest shipping lanes on the planet - fairly dangerous in small underfuelled inflatables. Big container ship vs inflatable that doesn't have radar or a nav system? Mmmm.

Because crossing the Med is easy? Or crossing a country (or several) at war?

Yes t's a busy stretch of water. It's also short. And you don't have (yet) the risk of meeting up with a boat filled with guns.

France said months ago that that would happen if Britain voted to leave. I'm not even in the UK. I didn't have a vote and I knew that already. How were voters not aware of it? Did people do no research?

LOL, Scarry, do you rally think that it is reasonable to say that everyone who destroys their papers is automatically a threat? That just does not make sense. The majority of migrants are people fleeing war, persecution or poverty for a better life, not terrorists. Many may destroy papers and get fake ones in order to increase their chances to get asylum, not because they're terrorists, but because they're desperate people who'd do anything to get a better life for themselves and their family. I think most people would do the same in their situation. Not even UKBA assumes that all migrants are automatically a security threat, that's just bonkers.

And yes, you're right, there have been a few incidents of terrorists coming in posing as migrants, but they are very, very few. The majority of terror attacks have not happened this way. To say you'd close the Eurotunnel for this reason, or consider all migrants a threat for this reason, is as crazy as saying that you'd assume all school children were shop lifters because one in a thousand is, so forbid all school children from entering shops.

I am not being blasé about threat levels or terrorist threats, but I do think that it is important to keep in mind that most migrants are not terrorists but people in need of help, and to focus on what is the most logical and effective way of preventing terrorism, and I do not see that being shutting down the Euro Tunnel, or for that matter, shutting all migrants out of the UK!