High Speed Rail, the big European picture

[HSTEd]

This is OT, but a lot of the 'proven' reserves are questionable at best and some are complete works of fiction. It's my opinion that it's highly unlikely that we'll be seeing $60/bbl in twelve to fifteen years time - which is when we're talking about, a few years after HS2 opens.

Oil Sands alone are titanic reserves at $60/bbl.
Much higher and synthetic fuels increase the supply any further, it can't sustain levels much higher than that in my opinion.

 

[najaB]

Oil Sands alone are titanic reserves at $60/bbl.
Much higher and synthetic fuels increase the supply any further, it can't sustain levels much higher than that in my opinion.

I agree there's a lot of oil in the ground, but it's only going to get harder to get out of the ground as time goes on. If global consumption recovers in the next five years the 'easy' hard oil is going to be used up quite quickly.

Thing is, neither of us can know for sure but if the price of whatever they are using as the benchmark crude is under £60/bbl on March 25th 2030 I'll buy you a beer.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Don't be ridiculous. The right-wing press would have you believe that, but millions of people cross European borders every day for vital reasons, to no ill-effect.

Schengen is absolutely fine. The refugee crisis and terror threats are, however, stoking xenophobia for those that want to sell papers for an easy buck.

Really, I must be dreaming then when I watch BBC News (hardly right wing) and see all theses countries in Europe erecting fencers or re-establishing border checks, like between Denmark and Sweeden, all to try and stop the flow of migrants and refugees.

 

[najaB]

Really, I must be dreaming then when I watch BBC News (hardly right wing) and see all theses countries in Europe erecting fencers or re-establishing border checks, like between Denmark and Sweeden, all to try and stop the flow of migrants and refugees.

There's a difference between temporary enhanced checks on peripheral countries and the Schengen area collapsing.

The Schengen agreement specifically allows for the former, by the way.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There's a difference between temporary enhanced checks on peripheral countries and the Schengen area collapsing.

The Schengen agreement specifically allows for the former, by the way.

Exactly. The idea that it's necessary for Britain to be shut off from Europe because Schengen is "collapsing" is, frankly, a joke.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

There's a difference between temporary enhanced checks on peripheral countries and the Schengen area collapsing.

The Schengen agreement specifically allows for the former, by the way.

I am not the only who thinks these temporary restrictions won't become more permanent though.

Asselborn: Suspension of Schengen means 'it will never come back'

The European Union has no plan to even temporarily cut Greece out of its passport-free Schengen zone and any suspension of open travel means “it will never come back,” Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said.

With Europe likely to face increased migration from Syria and other conflict zones throughout the next decade, the 28-member bloc must immediately start giving more money, equipment and authority to its Frontex border forces, Asselborn said Wednesday during a visit to Prague. Sealing Greece’s northern borders with Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and unilaterally reinstating border checks within the Schengen area is “not a solution,” he said.

Tensions over the handling of the refugee crisis have escalated, with Austria and some eastern EU members pushing for sealing the Greek-FYROM border. Austria began admitting only a limited number of migrants, triggering a chain reaction of closures in countries to the south that’s stoking fears that Schengen may cease functioning.

Political divisions are widening ahead of an extraordinary summit of the EU leaders on March 7 called to take stock of efforts to secure the bloc’s external frontiers. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is defending her open-border policy in three regional elections in March, is pushing for EU states to share the burden of redistributing migrants in the face of opposition from countries who have rejected the plan.

Some EU members including Slovakia, Hungary and Poland have called for a “Plan B” that would cut Greece out of the Schengen area, pointing to Greece’s inability to secure its Mediterranean shores.

“There is no plan B,” Asselborn said. “If Schengen disappears, it will never come back.” [Bloomberg]

Exactly. The idea that it's necessary for Britain to be shut off from Europe because Schengen is "collapsing" is, frankly, a joke.

I never said that the UK should leave the EU, only that we will never join Schengen, and that any political party that proposes doing so would be signing its own death warrant.

I think it is disgusting that some people have exploited the refugee crisis and terror attacks as an argument that the UK should leave the EU as this would make us safer.

 

[najaB]

I am not the only who thinks these temporary restrictions won't become more permanent though.

I agree that a complete suspension of Schengen will be difficult to turn around, but there's a whole generation of young adults who have never known borders. It will be very hard to convince them that having to present papers to go to work, or go for a weekend shopping trip is a good idea.

 

[HSTEd]

The young don't run countries though.

 

[RichmondCommu]

So because of a few nutcases we should hamper our movement and our growth? Security forces do an enormous amount of work to track and stop these people: getting a tourist visa to come to the UK is an extremely trivial matter for terrorists. Most are home-grown anyway.

You're clearly missing the point. To simply dismiss those terrorists as being "nutcases" shows you at best to be naive. Our existing passport control enables us to prevent British terrorists from returning from Syria and prevents European's who are known to the UK security forces from entering our country. Look how easily terrorists have been able to move freely between France and Belgium because they didn't have passport control. Tourists visa's are irrelevant; those terrorists who continue to try and kill us already have European passports.

As a young man / woman you appear to have a limited understanding of the impact that 7th July bombings had on London. As a Londoner of many years I do not want to run the risk again of being blown to bits on the Tube because you think its a good idea to remove passport controls from our country.

Finally, having to show your passport when you enter / leave the country doesn't "hamper our movement". I take flights on a regular basis (at least once a month) and I certainly don't see that having to go through passport control restricts my movement so perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Not only that but in what way do you think it restricts our growth?

 

[najaB]

The young don't run countries though.

They are a key voting demographic though, and contribute a significant amount of taxes.

 

[edwin_m]

Look how easily terrorists have been able to move freely between France and Belgium because they didn't have passport control. Tourists visa's are irrelevant; those terrorists who continue to try and kill us already have European passports.

Various of the Paris/Brussels attackers appear to have been stopped by police in several Schengen countries but allowed to go on their way, including one escaping from Paris after the attackers there. If these more specific checks failed to catch them then I don't see that a general passport control would make much difference.

Finally, having to show your passport when you enter / leave the country doesn't "hamper our movement". I take flights on a regular basis (at least once a month) and I certainly don't see that having to go through passport control restricts my movement so perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Not only that but in what way do you think it restricts our growth?

When commenting from the UK perspective we must remember it is different for most other European countries. With the exception of Ireland we have no land borders and anyone wanting to travel internationally needs to make arrangements in advance to book a flight/ferry/Eurostar/Eurotunnel. When you have to do that the need for a passport is a relatively minor extra stage in the process, so not being in Schengen doesn't make a big difference to our ability or otherwise to travel freely.

There is a lot more routine interaction in mainland Europe, including urban areas divided by a border that are starting to function more as one. See for example the French suburbs of Geneva, the interaction between Copenhagen and Malmo created by the Oresund bridge (at least until it was recently restricted) and even the Saarbruecken tram-train which crosses the border into France. Restricting travel within these areas is a much bigger issue for the people concerned, in the UK context more like having to show a passport for travel between Lancashire and Yorkshire (assuming they haven't imposed that yet...).

 

[TheKnightWho]

Finally, having to show your passport when you enter / leave the country doesn't "hamper our movement". I take flights on a regular basis (at least once a month) and I certainly don't see that having to go through passport control restricts my movement so perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Not only that but in what way do you think it restricts our growth?

edwin_m has explained much of my point well. On freedom of movement, this entire thread is about how Eurostar is impeded by passport checks, so our movement very much is hindered! Without them, we could have trains running from London to all over Europe, and likely from the north and Scotland to key principle destinations. I can't believe I'm having to explain this, given the thread...

That's aside from the fact that many tourists visit many European countries in one trip, but often have to miss the UK because of visa restrictions. We shouldn't hamper our tourism industry because of xenophobia.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You're clearly missing the point. To simply dismiss those terrorists as being "nutcases" shows you at best to be naive. Our existing passport control enables us to prevent British terrorists from returning from Syria and prevents European's who are known to the UK security forces from entering our country. Look how easily terrorists have been able to move freely between France and Belgium because they didn't have passport control. Tourists visa's are irrelevant; those terrorists who continue to try and kill us already have European passports.

As a young man / woman you appear to have a limited understanding of the impact that 7th July bombings had on London. As a Londoner of many years I do not want to run the risk again of being blown to bits on the Tube because you think its a good idea to remove passport controls from our country.

The point about tourist visas is not irrelevant. The fact they have European passports means it's easy for them to get here anyway, and so it doesn't matter if we remove controls. Plus no-one is advocating removing border checks on people coming in from Syria - that is a strawman argument.

I also find it hard to believe you're arguing for passport controls on West Yorkshire, given where the 7/7 bombers were from!

 

[notlob.divad]

I have intentionally not responded since my initial post as I wanted to see where the thread went. As I kind of expected it has swung to the political issues of border security and the Schengen zone rather than the technical issues of doing so

Until we sort out the passport control situation I agree that it is going to limit the effectiveness of through service. I think a point has been missed in the comparison of numbers vs flying. For an entire international train you would have to take all of the passengers from Birmingham to Paris, Brussels and (amsterdam) on the train to London, not just one destination however I think the point is still made that there are not sufficient of these to justify an x hourly service.

This is also my opinion. The demand is not there (yet) for dedicated international trains and so dometic passengers and international passengers would need to share trains. The only way I could see it working is having say 2 coaches per train as international isolated from the remaining domestic coaches. Once at St Pancras the whole train would become international. This would mean a huge dwell time as the entire train and platform would need to be cleared (and checked) before international passengers would be admitted to the platform. So I feel it is as impractical as any of the other suggestions for now.

As for Schengan collapsing any time soon, I just don't see it. You just have to drive between any two central European countries to see this. The border is, as someone said above, just like travelling between Yorkshire and Lancashire there is a sign that says welcome to Germany/Poland/France etc. The idea of this being tightened to full border checks like when entering the UK is alien and will be the admission that those who want to bring down western values have 'won'. As the UK and Ireland we are islands and thus naturally treat our borders as a defence, on the continent that is not the case. More integration will be the result, not more segregation, Europe becoming more like a United States of Europe.

Where this leaves our high-speed rail network, I don't know. Personally If being in the schengen zone means Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham appear on departure boards in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam etc I would take it, it would be brilliant for business and tourism and turn the north and midlands into genuine international locations. Schengan external borders need to be tightened, but the general principle will stand this test. However for us outside of this with our centralised London centric state I see a 400metre trek dragging luggage down Euston road as a barrier too far and so it will be flights to and from these wonderful European destinations for me.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The point about tourist visas is not irrelevant. The fact they have European passports means it's easy for them to get here anyway, and so it doesn't matter if we remove controls. Plus no-one is advocating removing border checks on people coming in from Syria - that is a strawman argument.

So why are tourist visas not irrelevant? Passport checks enable our border agency to monitor who is trying to enter our country and most importantly that enables us to monitor the movements of people with links to known terrorist organisations. Take away those checks as you are suggesting and we have then have no idea who is entering our country.

How on earth do you think we are going to stop British citizens and others from returning from Syria if we don't have passport controls? There are no direct flights or for that matter trains from Syria so how are we going to know where they have traveled from without close communication between the security and border agencies? The only way you can do any of that is with passport checks. Surely you can see that?

I also find it hard to believe you're arguing for passport controls on West Yorkshire, given where the 7/7 bombers were from!

Pardon? I've never once suggested that we should have passport controls in West Yorkshire so where has that come from? Please don't start fabricating such nonsense as all you will do is wreck the thread.

 

[najaB]

How on earth do you think we are going to stop British citizens and others from returning from Syria if we don't have passport controls?

There are passport checks at the point of entry to the Schengen-zone.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So why are tourist visas not irrelevant? Passport checks enable our border agency to monitor who is trying to enter our country and most importantly that enables us to monitor the movements of people with links to known terrorist organisations. Take away those checks as you are suggesting and we have then have no idea who is entering our country.

How on earth do you think we are going to stop British citizens and others from returning from Syria if we don't have passport controls? There are no direct flights or for that matter trains from Syria so how are we going to know where they have traveled from without close communication between the security and border agencies? The only way you can do any of that is with passport checks. Surely you can see that?

I also find it hard to believe you're arguing for passport controls on West Yorkshire, given where the 7/7 bombers were from!

[/QUOTE]

And you think terrorists are going to walk up to the Eurostar counter and ask for a 'super saver single', asking if they can use their 'Suicide Bomber railcard' so they can save some money and buy a few more nails for their IEDs.

There are thousands of beaches, harbours and jettys up and down the coast that you could just sail up to, jump ashore and disappear into the night.

 

[RichmondCommu]

edwin_m has explained much of my point well. On freedom of movement, this entire thread is about how Eurostar is impeded by passport checks, so our movement very much is hindered!

Other than a phobia of flying, what is there to stop people taking flights to European destinations, especially given that it is quicker and more importantly cheaper. I'm in Germany this weekend (Berlin tonight)to see my eldest son. Even with passport checks it would still have been quicker to fly, not to mention much cheaper.

How can you justify not having passport checks for the Eurostar when you have them when you take a flight, assuming that is what you are suggesting. The Eurostar is a high profile terrorist target in the same way that the Thalys service is. Remember what happened on that? Are you suggesting that terrorists should be allowed to detonate explosives on trains?

Without them, we could have trains running from London to all over Europe, and likely from the north and Scotland to key principle destinations. I can't believe I'm having to explain this, given the thread...

As others have pointed out the market simply isn't big enough for direct journeys from say Manchester to Paris or beyond. Even from London I regularly fly over to both Frankfurt and Dortmund for work and to visit my son and even without passport controls flying is still quicker and cheaper. If DB thought there was a big enough market from Germany to London they would be running trains now. They're not.

That's aside from the fact that many tourists visit many European countries in one trip, but often have to miss the UK because of visa restrictions. We shouldn't hamper our tourism industry because of xenophobia.

Given how popular the UK is with overseas visitors, applying for visa's is not going to put people off in the same way that it doesn't stop my wife and I visiting the likes of Vietnam. If people want to come to the UK they will think nothing of getting a visa.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There are passport checks at the point of entry to the Schengen-zone.

Yes I know but what are the Greeks doing about it?

 

[RichmondCommu]

And you think terrorists are going to walk up to the Eurostar counter and ask for a 'super saver single', asking if they can use their 'Suicide Bomber railcard' so they can save some money and buy a few more nails for their IEDs.

I wasn't aware that a 'Suicide Bomber railcard' existing. Always learning on this forum.

There are thousands of beaches, harbours and jettys up and down the coast that you could just sail up to, jump ashore and disappear into the night.

Yes I realise that but that takes a lot more organisation and with a lot more risk. We can't always always guard against that but taking away passport controls would make things far worse.

 

[MarkyT]

I think there is unlikely to be sufficient demand along any particular continent - provincial UK route to justify any kind of service frequency that would be attractive, even if the immigration and security concerns could be addressed affordably. The most compelling alternative in my opinion is to make the Euston / St Pancras / Kings Cross complex into a major 'Hauptbahnhof' with the existing and rebuilt terminals interconnected by shallow subsurface pedestrian passageways on a similar scale to the inter-terminal walkways at airports. ECML MML and WCML converge already on this hub and I would also advocate rerouting GWML long distance services into Euston, using some of the classic main line capacity on the Euston approaches released by the new HS2 access tunnels, and the expanded terminus, whilst re-routing as much of the suburban WCML traffic as possible into the Crossrail 1 tunnels via Old Oak Common. Thus, for most long distance domestic corridors in the UK, comparatively easy interchange to continental services could be made. Coupled with this I envisage a different approach to incoming immigration checks at St Pancras (or Ashford or Ebbsfleet), treating these stations in exactly the same way as an international airport and so allowing a wider range of continental destinations to be served directly to and from London whilst avoiding the ridiculous hour long detrainment and shlep with luggage through immigration and security at Lille that occurs with the current incoming Eurostar from the south of France. The idea would be to exploit the looming prospect of international high speed trains such as the Thalys network gaining routine security checks at their boarding points. The same facilties could be used by rail operators to prescreen immigration documents for International services to London. With good connection to London from the provinces, the combined demand of London and the South East coupled with the various connecting intercity routes could help provide the demand for increased continental services to a greater range of destinations at attractive frequencies.

Note: with GWML rerouted to Euston, Paddington would become available as the new London terminus for longer distance Chiltern services, rerouted via Northolt and Old Oak, as well as any residual GW suburban services not diverted to Crossrail and Heathrow Express. All GWML long distance services to and from Euston would also call at Old Oak Common for it's Crossrail and other connections.

I think an subsurface interconnecting passageway (possibly equipped with airport style travelators) between St Pancras and Euston could be created as part of the proposed Crossrail 2 station that is already planned to have two separate entrances, one at Euston and one at St Pancras, in the same manner as the double ended central London stations being built for Crossrail 1, the "Elizabeth Line".

Here's a concept I sketched a while ago:
http://www.townend.me/files/kxlink.pdf

 

[RichmondCommu]

Various of the Paris/Brussels attackers appear to have been stopped by police in several Schengen countries but allowed to go on their way, including one escaping from Paris after the attackers there. If these more specific checks failed to catch them then I don't see that a general passport control would make much difference.

Indeed, the French and Belgium police were very slack to say the least, although the Belgium police are being hampered by the division between the French and Flemish speaking populations. It's worth noting that the escaping terrorists were caught smoking class c drugs and drinking alcohol and yet were sent on their way with a warning that they might have an accident. In this country they would have been arrested for such offences.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There is a lot more routine interaction in mainland Europe, including urban areas divided by a border that are starting to function more as one. See for example the French suburbs of Geneva, the interaction between Copenhagen and Malmo created by the Oresund bridge (at least until it was recently restricted) and even the Saarbruecken tram-train which crosses the border into France. Restricting travel within these areas is a much bigger issue for the people concerned, in the UK context more like having to show a passport for travel between Lancashire and Yorkshire (assuming they haven't imposed that yet...).

Whilst I agree with everything that you've said none of this has any relevance to the Britain.

And in all in honesty there is never going to be passport checks across the Pennines!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Other than a phobia of flying, what is there to stop people taking flights to European destinations, especially given that it is quicker and more importantly cheaper. I'm in Germany this weekend (Berlin tonight)to see my eldest son. Even with passport checks it would still have been quicker to fly, not to mention much cheaper.

How can you justify not having passport checks for the Eurostar when you have them when you take a flight, assuming that is what you are suggesting. The Eurostar is a high profile terrorist target in the same way that the Thalys service is. Remember what happened on that? Are you suggesting that terrorists should be allowed to detonate explosives on trains?

Why bother with trains at all then? Why'd we bother building the Channel Tunnel? This argument is a complete non-starter.

As others have pointed out the market simply isn't big enough for direct journeys from say Manchester to Paris or beyond. Even from London I regularly fly over to both Frankfurt and Dortmund for work and to visit my son and even without passport controls flying is still quicker and cheaper. If DB thought there was a big enough market from Germany to London they would be running trains now. They're not.

But it is, apparently, big enough for direct flights. This is a complete myth, and seems to contradict your previous point. Plus your argument about DB is bunk: they're not running trains because of the UKBA refusing to man any new stations, adding considerable time onto any journeys!

Given how popular the UK is with overseas visitors, applying for visa's is not going to put people off in the same way that it doesn't stop my wife and I visiting the likes of Vietnam. If people want to come to the UK they will think nothing of getting a visa.

This shows you don't actually understand how many tourists don't come to the UK because they see getting the visa as extra work when there are plenty of other European countries to visit. The cost is considerable.

 

[HSTEd]

Why bother with trains at all then? Why'd we bother building the Channel Tunnel? This argument is a complete non-starter.

TO carry cars and lorries, and it was committed to construction before the rise of the low cost airline.

Plus your argument about DB is bunk: they're not running trains because of the UKBA refusing to man any new stations, adding considerable time onto any journeys!

In other words, they are not running trains because they haven't been able to bully UKBA into subsidising them by spending huge sums of public money manning additional stations for a tiny handful of extra passengers.

This shows you don't actually understand how many tourists don't come to the UK because they see getting the visa as extra work when there are plenty of other European countries to visit. The cost is considerable.

Opportunity cost is not a real cost.
Being flooded with tens or hundreds of thousands of refugees every year would have a considerable cost as well.
All it would take would be ten percent of the number that went to Germany last year to go to Britain.

 

[TheKnightWho]

TO carry cars and lorries, and it was committed to construction before the rise of the low cost airline.

And High Speed 1? Pull the other one. This argument isn't going to get anywhere.

In other words, they are not running trains because they haven't been able to bully UKBA into subsidising them by spending huge sums of public money manning additional stations for a tiny handful of extra passengers.

This is a laughable way of putting it. The argument was as to why DB haven't run trains, and the answer was given that the UKBA are getting in the way. Using words like bullying seems to demonstrate you've rather missed the point. Anything to victimise us poor Brits against nasty bullying Europe though, right?

Plus that says nothing about passenger numbers. Through services to plenty of smaller destinations exist on all routes - no-one is suggesting an hourly service from Edinburgh to Berlin.

Opportunity cost is not a real cost.
Being flooded with tens or hundreds of thousands of refugees every year would have a considerable cost as well.
All it would take would be ten percent of the number that went to Germany last year to go to Britain.

Opportunity cost isn't real, is it? You'd better get on to most major businesses and governments to tell them they're making a grave error.

Plus acting as though joining Schengen would cause us to be "flooded" is absolutely ridiculous. Germany chose to take migrants - the UK did not. The idea we'll collapse because of having to house some people is also a joke, but let's not go there...

 

[NotATrainspott]

When it comes to security, it has to be remembered that it'll never be possible to secure every place where large numbers of people will be around. Airport security exists because the effects of a hijacking or explosion on board a plane would be very large. A bomb on the ground might kill a few dozen people close to the detonation site and injure several hundred others, but on a plane it would most likely lead to the death of everyone on board.

On a train, the effect of a bomb is the same as it would be in any other public place with a similar density of people. It would take an impractically large bomb to cause a train to fail structurally to the point of derailing. If that were the intention, cases like Great Heck make it clear that you don't need anything other than a vehicle driven through the barriers to make it happen.

 

[HSTEd]

And High Speed 1? Pull the other one. This argument isn't going to get anywhere.

The CTRL was committed in 1996. Government funding for the rescue of LCR was committed in 1998.
At that time Low Cost Airlines were still a (relatively) new thing that did not quite have the dominant position they have now in transport circles.

Additionally it was supposed to be progressed as part of the regeneration benefits to North/East London (Depending on which CTRL proposal you look at) along the same lines as the rebuilding of Manchester after the bombing.

This is a laughable way of putting it. The argument was as to why DB haven't run trains, and the answer was given that the UKBA are getting in the way. Using words like bullying seems to demonstrate you've rather missed the point. Anything to victimise us poor Brits against nasty bullying Europe though, right?

If it wasn't a lot of money to man these border stations and DB were really desperate to start this operation they would simply offer to pay for the extra border staff.
Since, as far as we know, no such offer has been made it is clear that doing so would be hugely uneconomic for DB, which does not bode well for the BCR of having such a route exist through public subsidy in the form of security checks.

Plus that says nothing about passenger numbers. Through services to plenty of smaller destinations exist on all routes - no-one is suggesting an hourly service from Edinburgh to Berlin.

Unless you can fill a train every hour on the line between London and Birmingham then you have a wasted path on HS2 that can more profitably be used for domestic services running into Euston.
And if you only want to run a small number of trains then the BCR for the HS1-HS2 link, which would cost a LOT of money starts to look rather flakey.
What extension to HS2 is to be sacrified to pay for it?

Opportunity cost isn't real, is it? You'd better get on to most major businesses and governments to tell them they're making a grave error.

Opportunity cost is certainly not real, you have not actually lost any morney.
Claiming that it is the same as an actual cost is assuming that you should perfect knowledge of the future, which you clearly don't.
You have to apply a writedown factor, and this factor can get rather large.

Plus acting as though joining Schengen would cause us to be "flooded" is absolutely ridiculous. Germany chose to take migrants - the UK did not. The idea we'll collapse because of having to house some people is also a joke, but let's not go there...

The UK in Schengen will have disposed of the majority of its border guards, since it would only need them at airports for international flights.
It would have no capability remaining to vet people entering on ferries or through the Chunnel. [And if you don't disband most of UKBA you won't actually realise these supposed savings that come from joining Schengen]
What would you propose to do in that circumstance?

Have armed police accost people who look like they might be from the middle east and africa and demand they present papers?
How is that going to look?

And a hundred thousand or two immigrants might not be a problem if they all disperse homogenously into the general population - but that will never happen. They would all crowd into a handful of relatively small ghettoes, as has happened with all previous large scale migration waves.
Integration of such groups takes decades, so you could potentially generate areas of the country dominated by Syrians or Afghanis or what not with the consequent political issues (including the potential election of islamists and/or ultraconservative elements).

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst I agree with everything that you've said none of this has any relevance to the Britain.

And in all in honesty there is never going to be passport checks across the Pennines!

That was exactly my point. Passport control is a relatively minor impediment to Britons, because (excepting the land border with Ireland) any international travel involves crossing the sea and the passport check isn't a big extra cost or inconvenience. Citizens of many regions in Europe see international journeys in the same way as we would see travel between (say) Manchester and Leeds. Providing passport control on that sort of journey would be expensive for the authorities and time-consuming for travellers.

 

[MarkyT]

That was exactly my point. Passport control is a relatively minor impediment to Britons, because (excepting the land border with Ireland) any international travel involves crossing the sea and the passport check isn't a big extra cost or inconvenience. Citizens of many regions in Europe see international journeys in the same way as we would see travel between (say) Manchester and Leeds. Providing passport control on that sort of journey would be expensive for the authorities and time-consuming for travellers.

There are places in Benelux where the international border runs down the centre of streets and even cuts through buildings. In one area there are 2nd order Dutch enclaves within a larger 1st order Belgian enclave, all within the Netherlands. Some of the enclaves are little larger than one property or plot of land:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave#/media/File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg
To be fair, internal Benelux borders were completely open (neccesarily) many years before the broader Schengen agreement. In another case decades and billions of Euros have been spent uniting the Oresund region in southern Sweden with it's natural economic centre, Copenhagen, just over the strait in Denmark. the most notable feature being the fixed crossing, a vast bridge and tunnel construction famously featured in the crime drama 'The Bridge'. A temporary closure of this border to control migration was imposed earlier this year and is still in place I believe. That has caused chaos to the thousands of regular commuters that use the crossing daily and rail travellers in particular who, with all regular longer distance trains from Sweden to Copenhagen withdrawn, are forced to go through security and make additional connections onto shuttle services between Copenhagen airport and Malmo. Conceptually it is a bit like closing the Welsh border with GWR services no longer going to Cardiff, then only having a special shuttle from Bristol to Newport to cross the border.

What I'm saying is that practical local economic and political pressure in each individual border zone will likely ensure Schengen's survival long term regardless of any temporary measures imposed due to short term migration pressures. On he other hand I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance that UK will ever be part of Schengen, whether or not we stay in the EU. An interesting anomaly is that the UK does have a fairly open border with an EU Schengen nation, in Ireland, but of course the ROI has no land border with the rest of the European mainland.

Accepting that as I think we must realistically, something really needs to be done to put international rail travel into the UK on the same competitive footing as air travel, hence potentially allowing a wider range of closer northern European destinations to be served directly from London / Ebbsfleet / Ashford without the excruciating Lille shuffle. UK Border Force clearly has no intention of establishing any new rail terminal outposts beyond those existing today at Paris, Brussels and Lille, and the press today reveals murmerings of controversial cutbacks in that agency anyway. At continental airports with flights to UK clearly a different system applies with security and immigration screening checks for UK-bound flights being carried out by local staff, not UK officials, otherwise there would have to be UK staff based at airports all over the world! Discounting the UK joining Schengen, what legally, instititutionally, needs to change to allow our international rail terminals such as St Pancras to be treated exactly as they would be if they were an international airport and so accept incoming international trains from a wider range of destinations without the Lille nonsense?