Jump to content

Long traffic delays at Dover ferry port are fault of Brexit, claim French


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It's not really the EU punishing Brits though, is it? It's the EU sticking to the agreement negotiated with the UK (and which the UK signed off on) of ending freedom of movement between the EU and the UK.

 

I get the distinct impression some people thought this would be a one way process - it's as if they thought the UK would be able to stop free movement of EU citizens into the UK but UK citizens would keep their complete freedom of movement into EU countries.

 

This was never going to be the case, these kinds of restrictions are an inevitable consequence of no longer being a member state of the EU. You can't cancel your membership of an exclusive club and expect to still enjoy all the same benefits that you had when you were a member. It just doesn't work that way.

And who wrote this agreement? 

Posted
3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'm advocating a preparation for war with an organisation (the EU under German control) that has always been the true enemy of England. Appeasement has never worked.

Oh my, hyperbolic post of the year contender.....:coffee1:

Posted
2 hours ago, baboon said:

Your opinion is your opinion.

However I think I will leave it there and avoid the watchlist you are probably on for your 'forthright' political views...

Just as I though the nonsense couldn’t get any worse, you’ve dreamt up ‘a watch list for forthright politics views’.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

What were the actual passenger numbers then?

It wasn’t me that introduced ‘probable’ and ‘rough guess’ of the numbers into the discussion.

 

That was you, the basis of the argument you are making is based on your ‘probable’ and ‘rough guess’.

 

I don’t owe you any numbers.

 

Your arguments are groundless.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
Posted
49 minutes ago, Loiner said:

What were the actual passenger numbers then?

You made a claim, It's your job to back it with numbers, but I doubt you will.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t me that introduced ‘probable’ and ‘rough guess’ of the numbers into the discussion.

 

That was you, the basis of the argument you are making is based on your ‘probable’ and ‘rough guess’.

 

I don’t owe you any numbers.

 

Your arguments are groundless.

 

 

Prove me wrong then. It’s not like you to not have a link. Usually to some lefty anti-Brexit rag but we are just looking for numbers here.

Personally I don’t place much faith in most of the information published, especially if twisted spun and distorted in relation to Brexit. If I said ‘definitely’ based on actual records would you like to contradict me with your own version of the actuals?

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, candide said:

So you don't have any point.

It was made further back in this very thread. 
The Spanish perform the same border checks infinitely more efficiently than the French. The Spanish have more border guards and better systems than the French and weren’t trying to harass British travellers last weekend. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You brought some fictitious numbers into the discussion, you need to back up you risible ’probable’ and ‘rough guess’.


But do feel free to continue to hold an embarrassing position, you’ve only your own credibility to lose.

 

The numbers of travellers arriving at any given  destination is irrelevant , the only relevant number is the amount of officers available processing the arrivals .

   There needs to be a sufficient amount of immigration officers  to process the arrivals 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You brought some fictitious numbers into the discussion, you need to back up you risible ’probable’ and ‘rough guess’.


But do feel free to continue to hold an embarrassing position, you’ve only your own credibility to lose.

 

You could even quote last month’s figures if you like. They will be lower than this month’s. 
Go on, shoot down my credibility with your advanced researching skills. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The numbers of travellers arriving at any given  destination is irrelevant , the only relevant number is the amount of officers available processing the arrivals .

   There needs to be a sufficient amount of immigration officers  to process the arrivals 

You are right that the ratio of officers to travellers is the key to processing times.
This exchange over numbers stems from our French friend’s claim that 10,000 passengers was too much. It certainly is for the French, whereas the Spanish man up for the numbers expected and deal with ten times that amount. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go again, trying to keep comfortable b wrapping your self in the flag.

As you mentioned flag, I thought apt, plus I am not one of those who points a finger in words at the British SAS over a TV program.

You did, disgraceful, but I am not surprised by an anti-Brit Brit...???? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, transam said:

As you mentioned flag, I thought apt, plus I am not one of those who points a finger in words at the British SAS over a TV program.

You did, disgraceful, but I am not surprised by an anti-Brit Brit...???? 

No I did not.

 

Stop making stuff up.

  • Haha 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...