The EU debate - Part III

Nicky Morgan argues “parliament should be asked to formally approve the serving of a notice under article 50’’. But parliament had already formally given the required approval by holding the referendum. As the UK is unable to leave the EU without serving notice under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the holding of the referendum necessarily meant parliamentary approval to serve that notice had been given in the event of a successful leave vote. The one implied the other. Morgan also says “parliamentary sovereignty has been hard won over hundreds of years”. Yes, but parliamentary sovereignty is just one stage in the movement to achieve full democracy in government. Thanks to astonishing developments in technology, we can now involve all the voting population in decision-making. Simultaneously we are witnessing an immense decline in trust in representational democracy. The 23 June decision was preceded by six months of nationwide debate of an intense kind on just one issue. It was an astonishing democratic achievement. That MPs dislike it is to be expected. They recoil at the prospect of being agents, and not controllers, of democracy and will oppose it as monarchs opposed parliamentary sovereignty. We are witnessing political evolution. It is the future.
Michael Knowles
Congleton, Cheshire
Who decides on Brexit – the voters or parliament?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/who-decides-on-brexit-the-voters-or-parliament?

 

Belfast court dismisses Brexit challenge
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/10/30/belfast-court-dismisses-brexit-challenge/?
"McCord, Re Judicial Review [2016] NIQB 85 (28 October 2016) – read judgment

A challenge to the legality of the UK’s departure proceedings from the EU has been rejected by the High Court in Northern Ireland. In a judgment which will be of considerable interest to the government defending a similar challenge in England, Maguire J concluded that the UK government does not require parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. This is, par excellence, an area for the exercise of the government’s treaty making powers under the Royal Prerogative.

See our previous post on Article 50 and a summary of the arguments in the English proceedings.

This ruling was made in response to two separate challenges. One was brought by a group of politicians, including members of the Northern Ireland assembly, the other by Raymond McCord, a civil rights campaigner whose son was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1997. They argued that the 1997 peace deal (“the Good Friday Agreement”) gave Northern Ireland sovereignty over its constitutional future and therefore a veto over leaving the EU. Like the English challengers, they also argued that Article 50 could only be invoked after a vote in Parliament.

At centre stage in the English case is the means by which Article 50 TEU is to be triggered and the question of the displacement of prerogative executive power by statute. While this issue was also raised in the challenge before the Northern Ireland court, Maguire J also had before him a range of specifically Northern Irish constitutional provisions which were said to have a similar impact on the means of triggering Article 50. To avoid duplication of the central issues which the English court will deal with, this judgment concerned itself with the impact of Northern Ireland constitutional provisions in respect of notice under Article 50.

However, the judge had some clear views on the role of prerogative powers in the Brexit procedure, which, whilst respecting the outcome of the English proceedings, he did not hesitate to set out.

The arguments

The applicants claimed that the government’s prerogative powers to enter into and withdraw from treaties had been qualified by the Good Friday Agreement and the statute that gave effect to this peace deal, the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There were also a range of constitutional arguments before the court that the judge summarised thus:

the operation of EU law should be viewed as a building block of Northern Ireland’s constitutional protections and continued membership is a necessary element of the North-South and East-West structures and the relationships which form the kernel of the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland in modern times.

The applicants contended that further legislation would be required to trigger Article 50. Since any significant changes to Northern Ireland’s constitutional framework would require the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, the applicants argued that any such change would have to be preceded by a legislative consent motion granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Furthermore, they contended, rights that are exercisable in domestic law would be eliminated by the triggering of Article 50, and since prerogative powers cannot be used to eliminate rights, the decision to trigger Article 50 cannot be taken under the prerogative.

The Court dismissed the application in respect of all the issues raised.

Reasoning behind the Court’s decision

After an extensive review of the case law on prerogative powers, Maguire J concluded that the test for whether statute affected the prerogative could not be reduced to a single bright line rule which governs every case.

The fact that there is no express language found in the statute specifically limiting the operation of the prerogative will be highly relevant, as an obvious way of setting aside or limiting prerogative power would be for the statute concerned to expressly say so. It also seems to the court that there is support in the authorities for the view that, absent express provision being made, abridgment of the prerogative by a statute or statutory scheme must arise by necessary implication.

A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication. A necessary implication is one which logically follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between two things:

what it would have been reasonable for Parliament to have included, or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and
what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation.
There was nothing in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which so qualified the government’s prerogative powers. The judge quoted with approval the Northern Ireland government’s formulation of the issue; the actual notification does not in itself alter the law of the United Kingdom:

On the day after the notice [triggering Article 50] has been given, the law will in fact be the same as it was the day before it was given. The rights of individual citizens will not have changed – though it is, of course, true that in due course the body of EU law as it applies in the United Kingdom will, very likely, become the subject of change. But at the point when this occurs the process necessarily will be one controlled by parliamentary legislation, as this is the mechanism for changing the law in the United Kingdom.

…This is not to say that the United Kingdom leaving the EU will not have effects at all but it is to say at the least it is an over-statement to suggest, as the applicants do, that a constitutional bulwark, central to the 1998 Act arrangements, would be breached by notification. This would be to elevate this issue over and beyond its true contextual position. [105-106]

The fact that the judge found that the triggering of Article 50 will not in itself affect the existing law is striking, and one that will no doubt be taken on board in the English proceedings.

Comment

This judgment delivers something of a body blow to the argument that the use of the prerogative power is inappropriate in the Brexit context. It was “difficult to avoid the conclusion”, said the judge,

that a decision concerning notification under Article 50(2) made at the most senior level in United Kingdom politics, giving notice of withdrawal from the EU by the United Kingdom following a national referendum, is other than one of high policy. Accordingly, it seems to fit well into the category of prerogative decisions which remain unsuitable for judicial review. [133]

Even though this central question had been stayed, pending the outcome of the English proceedings, it will not go unnoticed that the Northern Ireland court was not persuaded that “prerogative power has been chased from the field”;

Rather, it is the court’s view the prerogative power is still operative and can be used for the purpose of the executive giving notification for the purpose of Article 50."

 

Pete, please explain why Nicky Morgan, a member of the united Conservative party, is asking the hapless May to put this matter to Parliament when May has categorically said it won't be debated in parliament (when I say "categorically" obviously I am taking the piss given she has already back tracked). It's akin to Ken Clarke, another member of the united Conservative party, saying that the government haven't got a Brexit plan. If these were members of the Sensible Party, would you have them shot for treason?

I also noted today that the Business Secretary gave away a few details of the Brexit plan. Obviously that is going to spoil the Big Reveal. Would you also have him shot?

 

Brexit boost as UK financial services sector to 'save £12bn-a-year slashing EU red tape'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/72...financial-services-sector-to-save-12bn-a-year
"BRITAIN'S financial services sector will gain £12 billion a year in revenues as it takes back control of regulation, it has been claimed.

The country is expected to leave the EU in 2019 and will not suffer extreme consequences as it creates its new model using lighter regulation suggesting the issue of "passporting" is overstated, it has been claimed.

The study says claims that Brexit will damage the City of London, the world's largest financial centre, are bogus.

And concludes that UK financial services, which support two million jobs across the country, will accelerate.

Adding to the positive news for the pound is the fact that Eurozone states are expected to become increasingly mired in desperate efforts to keep the euro afloat over the coming years.

In the past week alone Germany's largest lender Deutsche Bank's chief economist revealed he believes the entire European banking system requires a €150 billion bail out to keep it afloat.

The report published by think tank Leave Means Leave called "Why our financial services need a clean Brexit" includes a foreword by economist Dr Gerard Lyons and challenges doom-mongering claims from the Remain camp that the City will suffer from leaving the Single Market.

It says that escaping the “straitjacket” of burdensome and expensive EU rules will reinforce London’s dominant global pre-eminence.

It argues that the benefits of passporting are “overstated” as other tightly regulated markets outside the EU such as Singapore and the United States have clearance through MiFID regulation.

The suggestion, therefore, that the UK would not strike a deal is “extraordinary”, as UK firms are already fully compliant with all EU law.

In contrast, if the EU fails to secure a deal on financial reciprocity, many firms in the remaining EU 27 will move departments to London as the UK has “the deepest most liquid capital market in Europe, and hence the lowest form of capital”.

It highlights the opportunities Brexit will bring the UK as it will regain the legal power to regulate financial services, including potential savings of 2-3 per cent of sector costs, which would be worth between £8-12 billion a year, and urges the City to “focus more on this potential now”.

The report appears to lay bare the myth of the importance of the Single Market to UK trade as 59 per cent of UK financial sector exports are done outside the EU and exports to the rest of the world are growing much quicker than to the EU.

It forecasts that London’s dominant position will be boosted safeguarding the jobs of the 250,000 – 300,000 people directly employed in the ‘Square Mile’ while the EU will have to tackle the banking crisis and the very survival of the Euro.

It criticises the “burdensome” and “highly expensive” EU regulatory approach which fails to take into account national need.

It says that the only area of conformity in financial services is in product regulation through MiFID directives, which have been “inefficient and productivity and return sapping”.

It dismisses claims that 75,000 jobs are at risk, as the only way that would be possible is if all intra-EU trade from London collapsed. In reality, the biggest risk to the UK financial sector is remaining in the Single Market as the UK would take on all EU regulation without having a say in its framing.

The report concludes that “Leaving the Single Market will lighten regulation, enable more appropriate capital requirements and grow City and UK jobs, as happened when we did not join the Euro. That in turn will increase tax revenues, benefiting society as a whole.”

Richard Tice, Co-Chair of Leave Means Leave said: “As the world’s leading financial sector, the UK is facing a very promising and profitable future outside the EU.

“Being able to cut unnecessary regulation and bring back legal jurisdiction to the UK opens up a whole host of opportunity.

“The EU, on the other hand, faces a very difficult struggle ahead. It is essential that they secure a deal with the UK on financial reciprocity or they will see capital move from Frankfurt, Paris, Madrid to London.”

 

What part couldn't you understand?

 

In other news: Mafeking has been relieved and The titanic has sunk!..

Yes, this happened a couple of days ago. The English court has yet to rule on it.

Whichever way, it will probably go to the Supreme Court..

 

This has already been addressed in this thread. By having everyone apart from your fellow bigots and a couple of other people on ignore you are spamming the thread with outdated articles.

Get your head out of your enormous arse, man up and debate with everyone or, as Kustard would say, go back to your safe place (the garage).

Actually Kustard would say "your the no. I am knowing my view, if youy dont like you can leave and taky teayboy with you snowflake."

 

Already posted by the Brummie Simpleton and debunked by pretty much everyone who read it

 

Banks don't want to leave London post-Brexit, says City watchdog boss
http://www.cityam.com/252543/banks-dont-want-leave-london-post-brexit-says-city-watchdog?

"A mass exodus of bankers post-Brexit is unlikely, as many institutions simply don't want to leave London, the head of the City watchdog has said.

There has been some concern banks may look to move out of the capital following the June's vote to leave the European Union, particularly if the UK fails to secure passporting rights as part of the Brexit deal.

However, in an interview published in the Sunday Times today, Andrew Bailey, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) chief executive, has revealed, while he thinks some banks might move some of their operations out of the UK, many simply don't have the heart to leave.

"If they did [want to leave London], they would have gone," Bailey said. "If they want to go, they can go, obviously. Something has to push them out and that could happen, quite clearly.

"No, what would it mean at that point? My view would be, probably, they would prefer to have as little pushed out as possible. So quite logically they would look at operating models that would achieve this."

However, the watchdog chief also said he thought the big lenders would be looking at their options carefully in case of a hard Brexit.

"It would be pretty strange for arch contingency planners like us to say, 'Don't do that,'" Bailey said.

Bailey's organisation has recently come under fire in a report from New City Agenda, which slammed the regulator for cultivating a culture of box-ticking and excessive red tape.

Read more: Why Brexit will force British banks to think on their feet

"To my mind that was a pretty backward-looking report," Bailey told the Sunday Times. He has also previously told a press conference that he felt the report was "pretty disappointing" and, in at least one place, "just downright offensive".

The agency has also recently published its mission statement, a 50-page document designed to hone the focus of the watchdog's work for the foreseeable future.

The financial sector is becoming increasingly wary the UK government will plump for a so-called hard Brexit. A report released by TheCityUK earlier this month revealed that as many as 75,000 jobs would be on the line if the UK did go down the hard Brexit route.

 

The words. Try posting it in the style of a ******ed, Midlands Yoda.

 

I don't think you read all of this article Pete

 

Spectator competition winners: Jeremy Corbyn’s sonnet for Diane
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/spectator-competition-winners-jeremy-corbyns-sonnet-diane/?

The invitation to submit poems written by the Labour party leader was initially inspired by the recent publication by Shoestring Press of an anthology of Poems for Jeremy Corbyn. But another excellent reason to set this challenge is that Mr Corbyn does actually write poems: ‘I do write quite a bit of poetry myself,’ he told an audience at the Arcola Theatre in Dalston.

The entries came in thick and fast and the standard was terrific. Honourable mentions go in particular to Brian Murdoch, Paul Carpenter, John Whitworth, Rip Bulkeley and Josh Ekroy.

The winners below are rewarded with £20 each.

David Silverman
Shall I compare thee to Theresa May?
Thou art more lovely and more socialist:
More Corbynista thou than fashionista;
More fair art thou to me, in every way.
Stay by my side and be my Frida Kahlo;
Oh, come and be my red under the bed,
Or, in th’immortal words of Gary Barlow
Stay with me, girl, we’ll rule the world instead.
Join Strictly — give it everything you’ve got!
Your grace would put Ann Widdecombe to
shame —
Go for it! Put the Trot into foxtrot,
The sex into Home Secs — are you not game?
Though traitors sneer, I’ll always be your fan:
We’ll keep the red flag flying here, Diane.

Bill Greenwell
if you listen to the usual rumours
spread by the old Tory blues
you shouldn’t eat pitta & hummus
not even in sensible shoes

hummus is wrong to be seen with
on platforms, it isn’t too kosher
‘the garbanzo is a bad bean’: myth
you read in a Way Forward brochure

if you’ve had conversations with hummus
& lent your best name to its cause
it’s as if you are carrying tumours
& slavering out of your jaws

so support hummus today my friend
though they lay it on with a trowel
when they denounce us, we do not offend
while they’re using the wrong vowel

Max Ross
I’m Jeremy Corbyn, my hero is Robin
Though people believe I’m a hood;
But take it for sure that I’ll side with the poor
And all my intentions are good.
I challenge the rich as a saint does a witch,
And a city man suffers my jeers,
While rebels who strive for the freedom to live
Are the heroes who merit my cheers.
I am Jeremy plain who asserts his disdain
For the grandees who trample us down;
And of course I abhor every mention of war
For to fight is the way of a clown.
There are bits of the beast in a bishop and priest,
And religion is long out of fashion.
But strange to relate one exception I make:
An Abbott can stir up my passion.

Merryn Williams
Bliar, Bliar, burning bright,
In the pathways of the night,
How enormous is the lie
Can equal your depravity?

Spectre from a gruesome past,
You were first and now are last.
Now is now and then was then,
So please, don’t spit at nobler men.

Bliar, Bliar, thing of night,
Go to where the price is right.
Preach to others, not to me
Your gospel of depravity.

D.A. Prince
I’m one with the hopeless,
the plotless, the hapless,
the clueless, the viewless,
the low-key and sap-less.

I speak with the soft-voiced,
the muted, slow-thinking,
the muddled, deluded,
the seatless, the sinking.

I know there are bullied —
both beaten and whipped.
I wince when I hear of
their splits, the foul-lipped.

O Unity, blend us
together in bands
as brothers and sisters
and all holding hands.

George Simmers
I walked through dismal London streets
With Diane, hand in hand,
And sweetness filled our hearts, although
It was a Tory land.

For as we walked through Islington
We talked, as lovers do,
Of conference resolution
Composite 22.

Perhaps our love was too intense
And could not hope to last.
We parted. Much has happened since,
And toilsome years have passed.

Yet thinking of her now still brings
A stirring to my blood.
And that’s why I’ve promoted her
To shadow Amber Rudd.

Frank McDonald
If all the world was happy
And every pleasure free,
If rich and poor went arm in arm
I still would disagree.
If wars were all forgotten
And every kid could play,
If no one called a neighbour names
My tongue would holler ‘Nay!’
If kings went round in cotton
And beggars sported lace
I’d look around with careful eye
And see it as disgrace.
And though it may surprise you
To witness my success,
The reason for my rise to fame
Is never saying ‘yes’.

 

I think he's been at the Sanatogen again!....

 

James Morris: Labour has taken working class voters for granted. UKIP offers them a political choice
http://labourlist.org/2016/10/james...aign=Feed: LabourListLatestPosts (LabourList)

"If the Labour Party doesn’t stand for cleaners, care workers, joiners and warehouse pickers, it’s hard to know what the point of the Labour Party is. This party’s DNA is defined by the need to strengthen the power and improve the lives of the people in our country who don’t have the connections, economic muscle or time needed to reshape the country away from the interests of the one per cent towards the priorities of the masses.

The focus groups I conducted last week with working class voters in Rochdale and Oldham who were torn between the Labour Party and UKIP show how far we have drifted from these voters. You can watch the groups on election-data.co.uk.

Participants in the groups shared stories of life, and how little they felt had changed for the better since the spark of optimism that they felt in 1997. Children unable to find work that matched their skills, or sometimes find work at all. High streets of bookies, pound shops and arcades. Long waits for public services. Little sense of hope and almost no sense that Labour had their back.

Leaders of parties are always the focus of voters’ feelings and that was true here. Corbyn had two fundamental problems.

The most salient was a pervasive sense of weakness. As one person said “although they’ve got a leader, he’s no leader, because nobody wants to follow him”. To some extent this was seen as general infighting, but was also seen as reflecting his leadership ability. “We need somebody younger and somebody who wants to have that fight”. “He should just be sat on a barge somewhere going up and down.”

The second problem related to Corbyn’s policy positions. The only things they knew were that he was opposed to Trident and wanted open borders. The foreign policy position was particularly troubling:

“It’s a big bad world and Jeremy, you’ll get bombed. You can’t – there are certain groups that you cannot sit down with and discuss things. And unfortunately Mr Corbyn thinks – again he’s a very clever bloke, idealist principles, but you need somebody with a firm hand. In certain situations, certain things, you’ve got to be strong.”

While Corbyn is pushing these voters further from Labour, simply going back to the way we were before would do nothing to bring them closer. There is a growing cultural gap between the way these voters see the world and the cosmopolitanism and utopian egalitarianism of much of the Labour Party.

The heart of the issue is immigration. These voters believe that a government’s first priority should be its citizens. They see no reason why citizens of other countries should have entitlements in the UK simply because they move here. Nor are they willing to accept what they see as their English identity being undermined to fit in with the identity of others. They think Labour cannot comprehend these positions, let alone agree with them.

“They don’t really see the problem. They’ll only ever see the problem if they’re looking at a news article or report on TV or the radio. They don’t really see the issues. They might do it …. local media and they get to visit a community centre, but they’re not living in that area. They’re so far removed from –

“You see them at election time.”

“Yeah, that’s it.”

These voters accepted that migrants can become British. They knew previous generations had done so, and often had a migrant story in their family history. However they believed that journey should require hard work, economic contribution to this country, and playing an active part in the local community.

This problem goes back much further than Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, one of the few things Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn have in common is that they were both deeply unpopular. As one man said:

“What a chance this country had in ’97 to do something. What a chance Blair had. My father died the year before and he would have been so chuffed to see it… And Blair came in and we thought this is a new chance. And the reason this country’s full of people who are so cynical about politicians is down to Tony Blair.”

I sat in meetings with senior Labour figures from 2003 onwards who said that these working class voters had no choice but to vote Labour and that we should aim at the ‘aspirational’ classes. The voters I spoke to last week certainly had aspirations, and now, thanks to UKIP they also have political choices. They were aware of UKIP’s recent problems, but they still preferred to vote UKIP than Labour.

Now, if Labour is to recapture what was good about New Labour, and govern successfully it has to face up to a fundamental choice – to ignore these voters or to listen to them.

Both the left of the party and the liberal centre of the party may be tempted by the former route. The left can write-off these voters concerns by concluding that they are victims of false consciousness who really want better economic policy but don’t know it. The liberal wing can write-off the actual voters – they’re old, they don’t turn out, the country is becoming more middle class, let’s build a different coalition.

The alternative route is to take these voters seriously. To accept that they know what they want from their lives and that they understand how their community has changed. As one person (not involved in this project) said to me yesterday – if everyone in Emily Thornberry’s street sold up to white van man, and they covered their houses in crosses of St George, perhaps she would feel as culturally dislocated as the people in these groups feel as they see how Oldham and Rochdale have changed.

Listening to these voters means respecting their values but it doesn’t mean adopting the policy solutions they recommend. The party must have its own view about how to build a successful economy and a cohesive society. These voters want a party that respects hard work and values strong communities, but no one wants policy by focus group, least of all the people in a focus group.

The good news is that the values of contribution and community are not restricted to northern working class communities. Embracing them is a route to being a majoritarian party again. But first, the party has to accept that cultural concerns are just as real as economic concerns and it has to offer an inclusive and progressive way forward on both fronts. Without that, it is hard to see how Labour can be the party of working people ever again.

You can watch all the videos on election-data.co.uk. If you only have time to watch two, watch this one and this one.

James Morris is a former pollster for the Labour Party and is a partner at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Participants in the focus groups were all C2D, over 40 and had either voted Labour in 2010 but UKIP in 2015 or Labour in 2015 and would vote UKIP now."

 

Former Labour Party secretary latest Jeremy Corbyn supporter to be suspended from Brighton and Hove party
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1483...o_be_suspended_from_Brighton_and_Hove_party/?

JOURNALIST Greg Hadfield has become the latest Jeremy Corbyn supporter to be suspended from the Labour Party.

Mr Hadfield, who was elected local party secretary this summer only for the result to be annulled days later, has learnt he is the latest city party member to be handed a suspension.

At least 16 local members have now been suspended since July's disputed AGM election while Mark Sandell, elected chairman in the same elections, was expelled earlier this month.

The former Daily Mail and Sunday Times journalist has accused party bosses of conducting a “witch-hunt” but said he was confident of being found innocent.

He is accused of a pattern of behaviour, including intimidation of individuals, which is capable of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

It is the second time Mr Hadfield has been suspended from the party in two years.

An 11 month suspension was lifted without charge in August 2015 over similar allegations although Mr Hadfield was given a formal warning.

The latest suspension comes just days after an announcement that the city party, the largest in the country with more than 8,000 members and supporters, will be split into three constituency parties.

A steering group to oversee that process, which is supposed to include members of both the previously existing executive committee (EC) and the those who were voted in this summer, is due to be formed within days.

Mr Hadfield said: “I confirm that I am the latest of many victims of the witch-hunt against socialist supporters of Jeremy Corbyn within the Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party.

“Previously, I was suspended,?on a similar fabricated charge?, ?for 11 months, before it was decided that allegations against me, made by the party’s then regional director, did not even merit investigation.

“I am confident I will be found innocent again. Eventually. But only after I have been prevented from standing as a candidate in forthcoming elections.”

Former Hove MP Ivor Caplin said: “There is not a witch-hunt, that is not how this party operates.

“There are a series of allegations that have been made that need to be properly investigated and that’s what suspending someone from the party allows.

“The most important thing at the moment is to get on with reorganising the three constituency parties and get on with campaigning for 2019/20 elections or earlier if the Prime Minister chooses to call an early election.”

A public meeting for all members and supporters of the Labour Party will be held at Friends’ Meeting House in Ship Street, Brighton, at 7.30pm on Tuesday."

 

This is about as relevant to the EU debate as your anti-Muslim articles were.

Perhaps you could start a thread that is focused on anti-Labour party, anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner issues. You could call it "The Sensible Party" thread. It would give Kustard and Dull a new home so might qualify for charity status.

 

Is THIS the answer for Calais migrants? Australian PM says anyone caught sneaking into the country will NEVER be allowed back – even as a tourist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-sneaking-country-NEVER-allowed-tourist.html

"Asylum seekers trying to sneak into Australia will be banned from country
They will never be able to enter Australia again - even as tourist on holiday
Ban is set to extend to all types of visa including tourist and business visas
Legislation has been welcomed by some British MPs, dealing with Calais migrants

The Australian Prime Minister has said that asylum seekers who try to sneak into Australia by boat will never be able to enter the country again - even as a tourist.
The federal government is set to ban illegal immigrants under new legislation and will only bend the rules if it is in the public interest.
The ban would apply whether or not they were found to be refugees and extends to all types of visas, including tourist and business categories.

The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: 'That absolutely unflinching, unequivocal message has to be loud and clear.
'The door to Australia is closed to those who seek to come here by boat with a people smuggler. It is closed.'

The government will ask parliament to ban everyone who was sent to Nauru or Papua New Guinea's Manus Island for offshore immigration processing after July 19, 2013.
That was the date then-Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared: 'As of today, asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia.'
Asylum seekers aged under 18 at the time they were sent to Nauru or Manus Island would be exempt.

The Australian government face a similar dilemma to the British authorities as many migrants in living in northern France at the former 'Jungle' camp try to sneak their way into the UK.
Some try to climb on the back of UK-bound lorries in order to cross the English Channel from Calais and make it into Britain illegally.
The camp has been the source of tension between the British and French authorities and was last week destroyed and migrants forced to go elsewhere.
And after hearing of the new Australian legislation, some Conservative MPs said they supported the move.

Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgend told MailOnline: 'Yes , if you are caught entering the UK illegally then you should face a lifetime ban.
'Those trying to cheat the system must face the consequences.'
It comes as the Australian immigration minister, Peter Dutton described the new plan as one of the government's strongest moves, building on the success of its border protection policies over the past three years.
Mr Dutton said: 'There are still people, advocates in Australia and elsewhere, who are messaging to people on Nauru and Manus, that at some stage you'll come to Australia.
'Those people are living in false hope and it cannot continue.'
Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said it was too soon to determine if Labor would support the bill."

 

AND YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT!

 

What a load of pointless bollocks!

As if the Calais migrants are going to pay any attention to 'Oh, if I try to sneak into Britain and get caught, they'll never let me in again!'

Are you ****ing serious!?..

 

It's astonishing how ignorant and gullible Pete and co are

We'll show those illegals, if they try and get in illegally we'll tell them what they've done is illegal and they won't be allowed to try and come back here illegally again.

Rule Britannia.

******ed, far right simpletons