Sadly.... it is not really significant for our economy.... perhaps for security.... but I have yet to see any figures that convince on that even... again an emotive topic.
Whether you like it or not, or even if the fears are justifiable or not, immigration is one of the main concerns, along with the economy, of the British public. It is not propaganda, it is a real issue.
Immigration is a problem all over Europe. See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33055771. The question has to be asked why Europe which is so wealthy is not doing more to prevent people from wanting to leave their homelands. It would probably be cheaper to help them stay in their country of origin than try to deal with the problem when it arrives on it's shores. It is time to think of different solutions rather than say let someone else deal with the problem.
It is propaganda when figures need to be exaggerated and when the truth is the main victim. Ukip supporters, and many others, believe that there are more European migrants than there actually are - that they are all coming only to get their hands on the tax payers money, and that they all want to come to Britain. All of these are exaggerations which do not stand up to any scrutiny - look at the number of European immigrants which Germany has if you really want a comparison. The problem is that Britain's main political parties are all playing along with this immigration theme when they should be spelling out the facts.
I find it interesting that those who clamour most for the free market are the most opposed to a free market in labour. A free market cannot be free if labour is prevented from moving wherever it chooses. Clearly free marketeers do not believe in their own rhetoric.
The fact that there is so much talk about immigration already on this thread just enforces my fears that people will be voting on things that are pretty irrelevant to this particular vote and not on the crushing economic blow withdrawing from Europe will mean for the country
I don't see there being much of a blow if any economically from leaving. At uni, quite a few years ago now, I wrote a paper arguing for an agreement similar to what Switzerland and a few other countries have where they seem to have the best of both worlds to an extent. There won't suddenly be trade barriers with current EU nations if we leave. There may be a backlash to a small extent from foreigners against our exports but I think the effect will be short term and minor. I think on paper it makes total sense to stay in. In reality, I don't see us losing much by opting out and potentially gaining plenty.
I think that there is more people that want to come here come from outside the EU. But our big trade is with the EU and anything the hurts that will hurt the uk
Not much to disagree with here except to reiterate it is the responsibility of the country in which illegal migrants enter to deal with their own breech of security. Due to the Schengen agreement it allows the host country to escape its duty by freely allowing migrants to move unchecked across Europe with no nation accepting responsibility. This agreement was politically motivated, similar to the creation of the Euro, without any regard to practicalities and common sense. I'm so thankful that British governments engaged their collective brains on both of these issues and firmly rejected them as unworkable.
The consequences of having a decent border ensured I spent at least 40 minutes at Stansted airport last Friday at 1.30 am in the morning at passport control along with several hundred others. We were all moaning but it must be worth it if the checks reduce security risks.
Nobody has suggested that Britain should sign the Schengen agreement. The country has no land borders and so entry could only be via an airport, port or the Eurostar - all of which would normally have passport controls whether in Schengen or not. Britain is no more endangered or open to illegal immigration as a EU member than it would be outside of it and so the theme is irrelevant to the referendum.
I have also waited the same time for controls for an internal flight from Hamburg to Munich - airport security has nothing to do with Schengen.
You well know airport controls to board a flight has nothing to do with passport control on entering a country. Illegal immigrants are free to move countries within the Schengen area which obviously they cannot do so easily into the UK.
Have you not read frenchie's post suggesting the Schengen agreement is a good thing and the UK do not subscribe because of bad press? The UK would obviously be more open to illegal immigrants if passports between Schengen countries and the UK were not required. It would empty the calais camps overnight.
What I am saying is that the theme 'Schengen yes or no' is irrelevent to Britain because there are no land borders. Other than that this all has nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum because Britain is free to control its borders against illegal immigration whether inside or outside of the EU. The only theme which is relevent here is movement of EU citizens within the EU.
Passports are required between Britain and the Schengen countries with or without membership of the EU so the theme has nothing to do with the referendum.
It does not matter if the UK has land borders or not. The Schengen agreement enables the citizens of those countries to travel freely without passports across the borders of the countries concerned. There are no passport requirements for air, rail and road passengers when crossing frontiers within the Schengen area. I would imagine if the UK did as you suggest they would be disqualified from the agreement. My participation in this subject was solely to explain why I disagree with OFH's assertion regarding the Schengen Agreement.
Interesting to think if the UK, in general, voted to leave but one of its constituent parts voted overwhelmingly to stay; say Scotland for example, as they the nearest entity within the UK to an independent state. Hyperthetically could they just assume the membership that the UK had had? It would have been no different in theory to Scotland leaving the UK and losing access to the EU, the rest of the UK would have remained in the EU. All that would change is that the UK (Scotland) remains part of the EU and the other bit has left. Over a short period Scotland would replace UK in EU communications. One other thing would Scotland be a contributor to the EU as a whole or a beneficiary, as the Germans and others will not wish to start financing another nation especially without England's massive contribution?
As previously stated it only takes one member to block Scotland's entry and Spain would certainly oblige to protect its own interest.
