Spot on, there has to be controlled immigration as these people contribute greatly towards the national good. I can only admire those who have come to this country and integrated to become part of a cosmopolitan UK, where I have distinct concerns is with those who come to create 'enclaves' where the local population eventually become 'frozen out', that is not in anyone's best interests...
Reading some interesting stuff about the City, which I have an ambivalent (to be generous) attitude to as is probably obvious. I didn't realise that nearly 9 out of 10 investment bankers employed by Wall Street banks in Europe are based in London and nearly 80% of capital raised in European markets is done through London. Even a small slice of this business will be very lucrative for other centres to get. Paris and Luxembourg already actively canvassing for the business. Around 100,000 'international' jobs currently in London could go. The bankers and hedge fund managers are absolutely livid. The chairman of one asset management company tweeted ' As Gove doesn't rate 'experts' I presume his policy advisors will be clairvoyants, astrologers and Coco the Clown'. I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for these individuals, and anyway they are all highly mobile and their business is international. Plus it could make the London property market more sane. But the impact on the overall economy and the rest of us may not be great.
The 'enclaves', of EU migrants at least, are centred around where the jobs are. I can't see any way round this. If the jobs go, I'm pretty sure these migrants will as well. Other 'enclaves' of non EU immigrants may be a different matter.
The City of London is a really strange place and we don't quite know how this is all going to pan out. The 'City of London Corporation`has more powers than the Scottish Parliament does. In a very real sense it is the only part of the UK. over which Parliament has practically no authority - could it ignore the referendum result and continue in the EU. ? Most people in the UK. have absolutely no idea about this island of its own within the UK. How many people know that the City has its own mayor, pays its own taxes, has its own laws/privileges,and its own police ?
A bit parochial, and likely to be of interest to me more than anyone else, but perhaps a micro example of the complexities of Brexit. The regulator for new medicines in Europe is the European Medicines Agency. This gives the 'marketing authorisation' for new drugs, saying that the evidence shows that they are safe and effective. It does this on behalf of all the countries in the EU. The manufacturers then negotiate with each country on price, appropriate patient populations etc. All the countries have different approaches and it's a complete pain in the arse, but keeps me fed and watered so I shouldn't complain. The EMA employs 800 people and is based in London. Clearly that won't last, makes no sense for an organisation working across the EU to be based outside it. For manufacturers it adds a potential extra layer of complexity, if the UK decides to set up its own regulatory authority which we have to submit to. Or perhaps two, the Scottish health system may want its own. The U.K. is already a pretty unattractive place to do business (though nowhere is easy to be fair) for this industry and the devaluation of the £ and complexities of international price referencing (I won't bore you) will make it even worse. I hope the government, when we get one, will simply say that the UK will accept the judgement of the EMA going forward, even if we are not involved in it. A worst case scenario is that some new drugs won't ever be available in the UK, except possibly through private prescriptions, as companies calculate that the price they can achieve here will undermine prices elsewhere. The good news is that I am a genuine 'expert'* in this arcane and tedious world, have worked in it for 15 years, so I can safely be mocked, abused, accused of scaremongering and corruption, and shouted over. Phew. Note to self: ignore internal monologue. * actually I am a complete fraud, the technicalities are totally beyond me and I'm too old and lazy to learn. I am constantly amazed that I've got away with it for so long, but have reached the conclusion that everybody else is in the same boat, and we collude in not finding each other out.
I suspect life will go on as usual, with the City keeping an eagle eye on Brexit negotiations. As I've said before, there is already a mellowing of the EU's position. In particular: 1. President Hollande has confirmed that France wants to maintain the bilateral agreement with the UK over Calais. So no illegal immigrant camps at Dover then. 2. The Czech president wants his country to have a referendum over the EU and Nato. The Czech foreign minister blamed Juncker for Brexit and called for him to go. 3. Slovakia is about to take over the 6 month EU presidency, and its prime minister Robert Fico seems to be taking a much more conciliatory approach to the UK than the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels
Err, this has got nothing to do with the politicians Goldie. It's about where the money is and where is best to do business. About the most successful bit of the government's approach to the EU was 'protecting' the City outside the Eurozone. Those protections are now gone, even Cameron's renegotiated stuff no longer applies between now and leaving. Whatever the future trade arrangements it just makes business sense to conduct EU related financial trades within the EU. Massive incentives for EU financial centres to attract London business. Massive incentives (the tax take) for EU national governments to help them. And it's relatively easy to do, some offices, computer systems, bring the people over, job done, not like building a factory. As an aside, British infrastructure decisions now on hold: - Heathrow third runway (or any airport expansion) - Trident missile replacement To come? - HS2 (ha Old Oak!) - Hinckley Point Power Station We've waited so long for these decisions we probably won't miss them.
What if we reach a deal with the EU to remain in the single market with controlled immigration but an annual contribution by the UK to the EU budget? This cannot be ruled out, and surely the banks etc will hold fire on expensive moves to the Continent (with the possible exception of creating subsidiaries and branch offices over there) until this whole thing starts to shake down over the next 2-3 years.
'What if' scenarios don't drive business decisions in my experience, unless they are evidence based forecasts, and we have no evidence in this unique situation. If we have a government that proposes what you suggest (an amended Norway deal if I read you right) very soon and there is a positive response from the EU and EU national governments it may work out the way you suggest.
I just don't see a flight from London at present. There may be, as I say, a hedging of bets by the creation of paper subsidiaries, but the maxim does seem to be - watch and wait. And as we know in politics, things can be very volatile and there are a wide range of possibilities for the UK/EU outcome. Hardliners like Juncker could find themselves out on their ear by the autumn, who knows? Heads of state of member countries will react to their electorate. It's still too early to say what the groundswell of opinion of EU citizens is to Brexit, but we do know that many are sympathetic
Anyway, on to much more important things. As a kind of dirty protest, idleness, experiment I haven't shaved since the referendum. The resulting predominantly grey monstrosity is beginning to itch and is attracting negative comment from the family. So the badger hair brush, Taylor's of Old Bond Street Shaving cream and Merkur 34D razor with Japanese blades are about to get a thorough work out. If I remember you are also a fellow traditional shaver. One of my better decisions of recent years, I'm actually looking forward to this. Apologies if later posts are a bit blood spattered.
I'm most certainly a traditional shaver. Once you're onto the double edged razor, you never go back to the old cartridges that give you a five o'clock shadow. I admit to having a small armory, and the Merkurs and Muhles are brilliant pieces of kit.
Essentially when we talk about 'controlled' immigration we are talking mostly about Poland - because Poland has 3-4 times more immigrants in the UK. than the next placed European country. There has never really been 'uncontrolled`immigration from countries like Germany, France, the Netherlands etc. So the long term goal of the EU. must be to raise living standards in those East European countries which are suffering from a depleting population (otherwise it becomes a vicious circle because nobody invests in countries where everybody is leaving). The ex GDR is the only area of the former eastern block where living standards have really risen - for obvious reasons, namely that Germany introduced a solidarity tax, and was able to kick start the economy there with their own version of the Marshall Plan. Surely only something broadly ecquivalent to a Marshall Plan can raise Eastern European living standards up to Western levels - which is the only real solution to the freedom of movement problem. If Britain starts controlling Eastern European immigration then it creates proportionally more pressure on the social systems of countries like Germany, France etc.
Immigration not just a UK problem Nations Hinder U.S. Effort to Deport Immigrants Convicted of Crime By RON NIXONJULY 1, 2016 Photo please log in to view this image Jean Jacques, a Haitian immigrant who was convicted of murdering a woman in Connecticut, during his trial in April. Government efforts to deport him back to Haiti were unsuccessful. Credit Aaron Flaum/Norwich Bulletin, via Associated Press WASHINGTON — Thousands of immigrants with criminal convictions, including for assault and attempted murder, have been released from detention because their native countries refused to take them back, according to statistics recently released by the Department of Homeland Security. The inability to deport the criminals has prompted outrage among lawmakers and advocates of tighter immigration laws, who say that the Obama administration could be doing much more to pressure uncooperative countries. But the department faces a number of obstacles. It is legally barred from indefinitely detaining immigrants who cannot be repatriated. And poorer nations are often reluctant to take back violent offenders because they have limited resources to deal with them. The release of such immigrants into American cities is a particularly charged aspect of the national debate over immigration. Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has painted a grim picture of immigrant criminals menacing the streets. More than 100 of the immigrants released by the government have later been charged in homicides. In one of the most recent examples, Jean Jacques, a Haitian immigrant, was sentenced last month to 60 years in prison for the murder of Casey Chadwick, a 25-year-old woman from Norwich, Conn. Mr. Jacques, who previously served time for attempted murder, had been released in 2012 after the immigration agency tried several times to deport him. Haitian officials blocked the transfer because they said Mr. Jacques could not prove that he was a citizen. Records recently released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for deportations, show that more than 8,000 immigrants with criminal convictions in the United States have been set free here since 2013. The figures, requested by Congress, include both undocumented immigrants and some with legal status. Lawmakers, calling the issue a threat to public safety, said it was appalling that Haiti and other countries had prevented the deportations. “There is no reason we should have to go on bended knee to ask them,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. “We shouldn’t have to keep someone in this country who is here illegally but also dangerous.” Mr. Blumenthal said he planned to introduce legislation that would impose sanctions on countries that refuse to take back their nationals. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, urged Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, in a letter this week to do more to press recalcitrant countries. “Lives are being lost,” Mr. Grassley wrote. “It can’t continue.” Immigration officials say their hands are tied. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process barred the government from detaining immigrants indefinitely simply for lack of a country willing to take them. The Clinton and Bush administrations had argued that immigration law authorized, and that the Constitution permitted, indefinite detention of immigrants unable to be repatriated. But the court ruled that after six months of detention, if deportation did not seem very likely in the near future, the government would have to offer special reasons for keeping someone in custody. “The six-month requirement makes it very difficult to hold on to these people,” Mr. Johnson told senators at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. But experts say the federal government has a number of options to persuade countries to take back their citizens. The immigration authorities can hold immigrants longer if they can show that they pose a risk to public safety, like a threat of terrorism. And under the law, the State Department can deny visas to nationals of countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens. But a 2004 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the department had used that option just once, in 2001 against the South American nation of Guyana. The State Department declined to say whether it had denied visas in this manner since 2004. Katherine M. Pfaff, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said it worked with the Department of Homeland Security to try to resolve issues with countries in individual immigration cases. Jon Feere, an analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration rules, said the State Department was putting diplomacy ahead of security. “Public safety seems to have taken a back seat to concerns about upsetting relations with other countries,” he said. “Foreign governments should not be in charge of our immigration policies.” According to documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 23 countries are considered largely uncooperative in taking back their citizens. The countries include China and important allies like India and Afghanistan, as well as several African countries with close ties to the United States, among them Ghana, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Countries often refuse to take individuals identified for deportation because of a lack of proper identification, problems in confirming citizenship, or poor record-keeping. Zhu Haiquan, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said that his government tried to work with the Department of Homeland Security in deportation cases, but that the Chinese authorities must first receive proof that the person being deported is a Chinese citizen. “We adhere to the principle of first verification, then repatriation,” he said. The Haitian Embassy in Washington did not respond to questions about the case of Mr. Jacques, the man sentenced in the Connecticut murder case. But in communications with State Department and Homeland Security officials, the Haitian authorities said they had denied Mr. Jacques re-entry because he could not prove that he was a citizen. Mr. Jacques arrived in the United States in 1992 after being intercepted in a boat off the Florida coast. In 1996, he was involved in a fight in Connecticut in which one man was killed and another was shot in the head but survived. Mr. Jacques was convicted of attempted murder and weapons charges. He served 15 years. In January 2012, he was released into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held for 205 days while officials worked to send him to Haiti. The Haitian government agreed to take him late that year, only to back out at the last minute, citing his lack of identity documents. An investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security found that immigration officials did not raise the case with the State Department because they did not believe that it “would intervene to encourage a foreign country to accept a violent offender like Jacques.” Mr. Jacques was released on Nov. 9, 2012. In June 2015, he fatally stabbed Ms. Chadwick in a dispute over drugs.
Britain has been able to deport 6,900 criminals since 2010, because of the European Arrest Warrant - it will be much more difficult to do this outside of the EU.
You need to look at the citizens rights directive - where some exceptions from the general rule of free movement are allowed. Generally the longer a migrant lives in the host nation the more rights they acquire. Deportation of EU. migrants is possible according to the following time limits: 0-3 months - The UK. can refuse entry, or deport for public security and public health reasons. 3 months-5years. - Can deport for public security reasons 5-10 years - Can deport for serious crimes 10+ years - Can deport for imperative reasons of public security. If dealing with nationals of non EU. states it can be a lot more complicated, depending in individual treaties with individual states. The EU. also allows cross border policing and a level of cooperation which would be difficult without it - the exchange of police information is also much easier within. If a person with a criminal record crosses into Britain from the EU. it is far easier to check up on his background than if he comes from a non EU. country.
But you're assuming that arrangement would change which is not necessarily true. Try and be positive once in a while.
I am not sure whether this would change or not - to be honest the situation is so unprecedented that none of us can make more than suppositions about the future.
Agree Cameron was a wimp. He should have stayed to sort mess but i am hearing that a lot of Tory members want AL over May who is seen as someone who went against Brexit. It will all come out in the wash.
