[wraymond]

I think we have found the nub of this. There seem to be two schools of thought around this sea-borne invasion.

1. My point is one of legality, especially when there are already in existence adequate procedures for asylum and other reasons for entry into UK domicile. Well used and well known.

2. Then there is the view that we might temper our objection to illegal entry by only accepting the ones that might be of beneficial use to us.

That second one seems to me to be uncomfortably close to the dodgy principles surrounding slavery but using humanitarian principles as an unintended cloak. At the very least it is selectivism at its worst.

In response to earlier questions about legalities and boundaries I wonder if perhaps not all of us are fully aware of some of the contractual obligations surrounding border management negotiated at the time of cessation of membership of EU.

For any uninitiated members there was a treaty negotiated with Michel Barnier, and later passed in to the final exit law within the EU in 2003 (remains in force), called the Treaty of Touquet. It alllows Britain to operate border controls in France. French officials at the time agreed with this amongst other favourable matters.

Now, as well as tearing up that treaty, Macron is the maverick taking the settled EU law into his own hands to suit his election chances. Not only that, but the very same Barnier is now saying (according to legitimate reports) that ‘It is now time to rescind Touquet...and let people who wish to claim asylum in the UK go there and do so’. Of course M. Barnier is also seeking election in France next April in direct competition with Macron. You couldn’t make it up! French perfidity knows no bounds.

Meanwhile, Macron is saying ‘France has never had so many police and gendarmes, and at times military personnel, mobilised in the battle against illegal immigration’. In whose interests, exactly?

Meanwhile EU Commission is somewhat muted, in spite of this squabbling in contravention of major EU Treaties.