Off Topic Political Debate

I'm not sure the average Briton would oppose a preferential system that somehow favoured europeans although it would not help secure new trade deals with countries such as India. The difference would be that the UK government would be in control of the numbers of migrants it decided was suitable. The current uncontrolled system is unsustainable.

 

When you talk about controlling borders I would really like to know what you mean by this. Do you imagine a) Bringing in a Visa requirement for all EU. visitors to the UK. or b) Stamping passports on the way in so that controls can be carried out afterwards or c) Controlling access to the job market ? In the event of the first you will have to take into account that London alone had over 12 million tourists from the EU. last year - bringing receipts of just over 10 Billion Pounds, spent on accomodation, food, entertainment etc. European tourism is also a shorter term thing than eg. from the USA. people will pop over to London for a weekend from France, or Belgium or Germany. Are you going to expect a Visa from someone coming over for a long weekend ? If so then London will lose billions in tourist trade every year. If you are talking about b) ie. letting everyone in - then 'in' is 'in' and you will have increased the numbers of illegal workers in England overnight. So, just let us know exactly what you mean by controlling borders and then we have a starting point - and remember, there are over 10 tourists for every one who wants to stay. If you also require a Visa for all those who just want to come for a language course holiday, then they may just do it in Malta or Ireland instead - they are starting already. Do you know how valuable English learning is as an industry for Britain ?

 

When I talk about controlling our borders I mean stopping the right of every European to have the right to reside in the UK completely regardless of any problems it may cause. It has been accepted that due to the UK's financial success, compared to most of Europe, it has led to unsustainable numbers moving to the UK. This is the predominant reason the UK voted for Brexit. The UK is a very crowded Island, limiting numbers is sensible.

I cannot see why a visa system will be needed between UK and EU residents, there are many non EU countries that do not demand a UK resident obtains a visa to visit their country. Currently there are 56 countries and territories that do not need a visa to visit the UK for stays up to 6 months. It is possibly anywhere to overstay a vacation, hopefully a better system of monitoring the ins and outs of visitors is established.

There is also much work to be done to discourage illegals from prospering in the UK by demanding a much higher level of proof to entitlement and access to facilities and work opportunities. Illegals should be deported in much greater numbers if they have not conformed to UK rules.

 

I thought Theresa May's speech was extremely clever. In essence she said that the referendum result told us that we cannot continue with the rules on immigration that we are bound to under membership of the EU. Everything else stemmed from that. I am sure that if the EU were to drop their four principles in respect of free movement as being a prerequisite of membership of the single market a deal could be struck easily. After all had Cameron been given a half decent deal Remain would have won. It will not happen though because for the EU it is a red line.
What follows is that we will not be a member of the single market
If we are not a member of the single market it would be daft to remain in the customs union as that prevents solo deals with other countries.
If you are coming out of both of these you will also logically come out of the EU judicial framework and finally you are no longer a member of the EU so you will not have membership fees.
This is a hard - complete brexit and in my view will happen. For the UK given we voted Leave it makes sense. The Norwegian model is not a good one so why try to replicate it.
If I had a magic wand I would reverse the referendum result - as I do not and we will leave then I favour a full exit.

If both the UK and EU could get that in their mindset they could then decide on a trade deal that suits both parties. Logic dictates that would have zero tariffs but logic will not operate as that would show other countries a path they might like. Therefore a deal will be attempted where trade barriers are low on some goods and perhaps customs deals can be done. In order to get low barriers the UK may offer some favourable deals on movement of people - but not unlimited. I cannot see why the UK would offer to pay for that. However we would pay to be members of various EU "projects" if the UK and EU so desired. It is a simple question of not looking at what has existed for the last 40 years but deciding on a sensible arrangement for the future.
I also think it is sensible to let the EU know that the UK does not consider itself over a barrel therefore it will not accept being "shafted". May said no deal is better than a poor deal. Again that is sensible - it stops the EU believing the UK will accept a bad deal. If they believed we had no alternative the terms offered would be worse. It is like any business deal
Finally on what is owed - that is a matter for courts to determine if the actual amount cannot be agreed. It will be what it will be.

I am as I say not happy about it but given the result I think it is where we will go

 

So, the actual 'physical' border remains open, presumably with some kind of entry stamp so that checks can be made at a later date (correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption). Problems with this are that at least half of all EU. visitors don't have a Passport, but use their ID. card to enter - can you 'stamp' an ID card, or are you going to insist on Passports, even for spontaneous weekend visitors ? People come to Britain because they think that the chances of picking up semi legal, casual, employment there are higher than in some other countries. In other words, jobs where National Insurance cards are often not necessary. Britain already has nearly a million illegal immigrants (ie. people who come from non EU. countries and who have outstayed their Visa, or entry stamp) and you want to add to that number ? You have some kind of weird idea of what Europe is like - do you think that it is some kind of 3rd World place where we are all selling our babies on the streets and dreaming of the promised land ? Wake up ! The actual numbers of EU. immigrants in the UK. does not justify this type of paranoia - look at the numbers involved and then compare it to countries like Germany or France - there are, for example, 15 times more Rumanians in Italy than in the UK. 4 times more Poles in Germany. The problem is not one of numbers (or origins) but rather in the inbalance of the British economy and its failing infrastructure. If you want to stop rural areas being taken over by Polish seasonal workers, then concentrate on controlling the semi legal work agencies which are attracting them with 'false' offers. European immigration pays for itself - there is no evidence that they are an overproportional drain on social resources (a stronger claim could be made for non EU. immigration). Remember also that a fifth of all tourists (who bring their money, spend it and go) are here to visit someone already living here - in other words, immigration pays for itself. Don't go on and make claims about your 'crowded island', or population density, - do you think that 200,000 Rumanians make any difference to this ? Or that the situation is any different in parts of Europe ? It is a question of resources and infrastructure, not of numbers.

 

I don't think it is reasonable to ask for these details - you actually have to go more basic. It is for border control people and immigration experts to work out details not for the likes of us.
When we leave the EU we will need to put n place the kind of arrangement other countries which border the EU but are not members have. Even Norway and Switzerland did not subscribe to the free movement of people for many years. The fact is that we will not be subject to EU rules - so across the years any UK government can then be as flexible or inflexible as it likes. Just because these arrangements are going to be difficult to achieve does not alter the fact that 17 million people thought leaving the EU was a good idea. We are at the mercy of their vote.

 

I have never been stopped at the Swiss border Leo, for anything more than a cursory glance at my passport - nobody ever knew how long I was there, and I have been a regular visitor to the country for the last 25 years (not for tax reasons, I assure you). The difference is that Switzerland has an infrastructure that actually works - you can't work without having a bank account (all payments there are through direct bank transfer - as in Germany), you can't get a bank account without having registered where you are living at the local town hall - Britain has none of these. Britain does not even know how many immigrants there are in the country (hence all the exagerations, which people believe). Britain has failed to control non EU. immigration - and has nearly a million illegal immigrants as a result, despite having full freedom to control its borders in any way it chose. Why should it all suddenly work now ?

 

I am afraid I do not subscribe to the idea that because of a deeply flawed opinion poll on a particular day that we should simply hand matters over to a politician who was elected on a platform of remaining within the single market, and is now using the situation to cover up the failure she had to control numbers from both inside and outside the EU. In a poll taken this month YouGov reported that when they asked people was it more important to remain in the single market, or control immigration, 45% wanted to stay in the market and 43% control immigration. So you can judge from that that immigration is not the overwhelming reason that people voted as they did. Or you can say that having now seen what is in store, they have changed their minds. There is further evidence from all around England that the path being taken is not popular. There have been quite a few by-elections to councils, and the clear results show that the Tories and Labour party candidates are getting hammered. Even in Sunderland a Liberal won the seat from Labour with a massive swing, taking 71% of the vote if I remember. Democracy should give people the chance to change their mind, which is why we have elections every five years. This path that is being taken is taking that right away from people and is leaving the population split down the middle at best, and could lead to huge unrest if we cave into the demands of countries like India who want virtual free movement to conclude a trade deal.

 

Do not mistake me OFH - I hate the idea that our future has been damaged. However the EU have shown that uncontrolled immigration is not on the cards if we want to remain in the single market. Forget Theresa May - there will be no deal by any UK politician that accepts uncontrolled immigration. It is a stand off. How many people wanted what does not matter - the UK under Corbyn even would not sign up to uncontrolled immigration - enough people made that clear as their "red line" in the vote. I wish it were otherwise.
I would love the chance of a second referendum or a General Election that produced a coalition government that did not trigger Article 50 - or even the court to rule that Article 50 is reversible. I just do not think any of those will happen.

 

You ask m he impossible - how do I know what will work? I only know that we will be leaving the EU, the UK will not accept EU rules on immigration and we will have to find what will work. I do not think for a moment we will get controlof our borders - whatever that means - but it does not alter the fact that we will not do a deal that accepts uncontrolled immigration

 

It did not take long for you to revert to aggression and insults. I have lived in Europe for many years thank you.

 

Superhorns (I'm going to paraphrase you here so please correct me if I'm wrong ) and anyone else that subscribes to the theory that immigration leads to overpopulation, please advise me on this because I just don't understand. Farage et al say that the UK cannot cope with the extra numbers, but if that's the case why do we not hear calls for state birth control to quel the extra unwanted humans. Go down the Chinese state birth control line if we are over-populated or in serious danger of it. Would love a response to this - nobody's ever given me one (phrasing).

 

Where is the aggression or the insult ? You produce an idea of Europe which is some kind of hellhole where people have only the dream of 'escaping' to the promised land over the Channel, in their hords, and then when I contradict it and say 'wake up and see the reality' you cry foul.

 

He conveniently forgets that the English have 3 times more teenage pregnancies than anywhere else in Europe.

 

SH - we must be able to describe what we do not like and if Cologne thinks it is a weird idea of what Europe is like that is fine - so long as he does not say you are weird he is criticising the subject not the person - it may take a while for us to get this right but is worth trying to get it right.

 

England and the world ARE overpopulated. Immigration adds to that if it is not balanced by emigration. The question really is whether the UK can cope with more overpopulation. I have taken Cologne and the Greens to task for NOT arguing that worldwide birth control are an important part of a global environmental solution.

 

The UK especially England is one of the most crowded areas in Europe. The simple answer is for the UK to regain control on how many additions it thinks would enhance the wellbeing of its residents. The problem with most European countries is that the birth rate is not sufficient, I don't think the UK has that problem, especially as the migrants have a much higher birth rate percentage.
I don't know anybody who would seriously advocate state controlled birth control.

 

Sure over-population is an issue. Probably the world's biggest issue as it increases pressure on the environment. But what seems more important to those calling for immigration controls are whose babies they are, not how many.

 

Re-read, He actually described me as having a weird idea, not a weird idea.

 

Thanks for responding.
If over-population of the UK is the issue, how is the birth rate not a major part of the political conversation?