EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Muttley]

Firstly, there is no perhaps. The UK has been consistently naive (or is it lazy?) in its approach to EU legislation. There is no evidence that we learn; instead, we blame others.

And after years of scapegoating the EU, is it any wonder the majority of the population wants to leave it ?
MP's: Hoisted by their own petard.

 

[Howardh]

Interesting Norway ruled out an EFTA Norway model yesterday, though they did months ago too. But people like Rudd are still going on about Norway models, they just never listen do they?

It's not strictly the Norway model, it would be Norway +; and the + being the UK remaining members of the Custom's Union to avoid a hard border across Ireland. Might be wrong, but Norway isn't in the Custom's Union therefore has a hard border with Sweden (EU) so goods are subject to physical checks on that border. Norway IS in the Single Market so accepts freedom of movement.
So the "UK" model based on Norway would be Custom's Union and Single Market so we would be a virtual EU member - pay in but lose the say. It does tick the referendum box as we would have left.
As far as I know we would have to be in either EFTA -as Norway is-or the EU for this EEA model to work.
There are a group of cross-party MP's who are thinking along those lines as a way out of the impasse.

 

[nidave]

Actually it was asked and it was confirmed that workers rights will NOT be affected so citizens won't be losing their rights to work.

It's just Project Fear kicking in again

Wait until we see who becomes pm. (am looking at someone like JRM) Guaranteed holidays are going to go, maternity and paternity... Gone. Unless it's in your contract (which c 75% of small business ovners don't give to employees despeite being a requirement under the employment rights act of 1996) it will go.

So by this logic the win-win is for the number of incoming EU citizens to roughly equal the number choosing to retire in Spain, as opposed to opening a floodgate to unlimited and uncontrollable numbers. Unfortunately this is non-practicable thanks to the EU’s ideological attachment to someone’s dream half a century ago.

Unlimited... really.. Have we really had unlimited people flood the UK. You wouldn't be able to move. Your retroic is and voice of words are telling.

 

[bramling]

Unlimited... really.. Have we really had unlimited people flood the UK. You wouldn't be able to move. Your retroic is and voice of words are telling.

OK - limited to the population size of the entire EU. As usual, find a way of playing with semantics rather than actually addressing the issue in hand. This is why leave is likely to win any second referendum.

 

[Howardh]

OK - limited to the population size of the entire EU. As usual, find a way of playing with semantics rather than actually addressing the issue in hand. This is why leave is likely to win any second referendum.

What's your opinion on non-EU citizens who can get visas for themselves and then bring in their families and their extended families and come in far greater numbers than EU's? Add to that we may well HAVE to give out visas (whether we want to or not) to the citizens of countries we wish to trade with - which is basically freedom of movement...but forced?

An estimated 240,000 citizens from other EU countries immigrated to the UK in 2017, and about 140,000 emigrated abroad. So EU ‘net migration’ was around 100,000—the lowest level recorded since 2013.

In the year before the referendum, net EU migration was estimated at 189,000, so there’s been a large fall following the vote. We don’t know how much of that is a direct result of the decision to leave.

Madeleine Sumption, from the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, commented on previous figures for the year to June 2017, which showed the same trend:

“It is unclear whether this decline is purely due to Brexit or would have happened anyway. The data don’t tell us this for certain, but the referendum has certainly created a set of circumstances – such as a fall in the value of the pound, and increased uncertainty about future status – that could make the UK less attractive."

Estimated non-EU net migration, meanwhile, is 227,000 a year—the highest level recorded since 2011. It has been almost consistently higher than EU migration for decades.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

 

[dosxuk]

OK - limited to the population size of the entire EU. As usual, find a way of playing with semantics rather than actually addressing the issue in hand. This is why leave is likely to win any second referendum.

Under what circumstances do you envisage the entire population of the EU migrating to the UK?

 

[Ken H]

It's not strictly the Norway model, it would be Norway +; and the + being the UK remaining members of the Custom's Union to avoid a hard border across Ireland. Might be wrong, but Norway isn't in the Custom's Union therefore has a hard border with Sweden (EU) so goods are subject to physical checks on that border. Norway IS in the Single Market so accepts freedom of movement.
So the "UK" model based on Norway would be Custom's Union and Single Market so we would be a virtual EU member - pay in but lose the say. It does tick the referendum box as we would have left.
As far as I know we would have to be in either EFTA -as Norway is-or the EU for this EEA model to work.
There are a group of cross-party MP's who are thinking along those lines as a way out of the impasse.

Thats if EFTA lets us join. EFTA is currently Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Why would they want Mr Awkward UK in their club? I think Norway has already started making 'bog off' noises.

Also bear in mind Norway rejected joining the EU in referendum. But then their politicians joined the EU in all but name.

 

[Ken H]

Firstly, there is no perhaps. The UK has been consistently naive (or is it lazy?) in its approach to EU legislation. There is no evidence that we learn; instead, we blame others.

The UK has implemented and policed all EU regulations, even gold plating the EU regs, it is said.
While elsewhere EU regs are flouted or ignored.

 

[HH]

The UK has implemented and policed all EU regulations, even gold plating the EU regs, it is said.
While elsewhere EU regs are flouted or ignored.

That's one way of viewing it. The alternative view is that others have a realistic view of how things work and are not ashamed to make them work for them, while we are like the head girl/boy, who is desperately trying to please teacher (and thus gets taken advantage of).

 

[Howardh]

Thats if EFTA lets us join. EFTA is currently Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Why would they want Mr Awkward UK in their club? .

It begins with "£".

I do agree these are relatively small countries and a larger one joining would make it inbalanced; but I don't think there's anything stopping us staying in the single market and customs union but without joining EFTA. Anyone?

 

[AlterEgo]

Still not 100% sure I know what you mean.
If UK nationals return to the UK they are still UK nationals, they will be putting back their state and private pensions into our economy (which is good), but the chances are the majority will be taking more out than they put in - especially if they need care which is state paid-for. Whereas if they stayed in Spain their paid-for insurance should cover them in those circumstances, meaning they would technically be self-funding whereas here they would be a burden to the tax-payer.
And on return they would be taking up housing stock which I'm told - on here - we are desperately short of.
Alternatively if we stayed in the EU and they stayed there....yes they would be putting our pensions into the Spanish economy, but they have released housing and medical space here and could be in better health than they would be in the UK (I'm convinced if my old man had lived in Spain he wouldn't have died of pneumonia) where they could need costly treatment.

So being in the EU and allowing our expats to live in the sun is a win-win for us and them, even if their state pensions boost the Spanish economy.

I’m amused at the idea that the same person, if they retire in Spain - a country which most retirees will have contributed almost jack all to before moving - will be a net benefit to the economy, but a net drain if they live next door to me, in a country they’ve paid tax and NI in all their life.

 

[Ken H]

I’m amused at the idea that the same person, if they retire in Spain - a country which most retirees will have contributed almost jack all to before moving - will be a net benefit to the economy, but a net drain if they live next door to me, in a country they’ve paid tax and NI in all their life.

because in Spain they would have private health insurance. In the UK they wouldn't need that.

 

[bramling]

Under what circumstances do you envisage the entire population of the EU migrating to the UK?

A rather silly comment.

Of course we're not going to see the entire population of the EU migrating to the UK. However this doesn't change the fact that the entire population of the EU is *eligible* to migrate to the UK under freedom of movement. So uncontrolled and uncontrollable, making the comparison to floodwater a very valid analogy.

 

[bramling]

What's your opinion on non-EU citizens who can get visas for themselves and then bring in their families and their extended families and come in far greater numbers than EU's?

This isn't relevant to discussing EU freedom of movement, as it's a completely separate policy area. However for what it's worth my opinion is that this should be tightened, again with the objective of arresting population growth.

Add to that we may well HAVE to give out visas (whether we want to or not) to the citizens of countries we wish to trade with - which is basically freedom of movement...but forced?

We'd never HAVE to give out visas. We may *choose* to do so, with our politicians making the decision as our elected representatives, and remaining accountable to the UK electorate in the process, who may vote the politicians out if they disapprove, or engage with the political system in the various other ways available to UK citizens.

 

[HH]

A rather silly comment.

Of course we're not going to see the entire population of the EU migrating to the UK. However this doesn't change the fact that the entire population of the EU is *eligible* to migrate to the UK under freedom of movement. So uncontrolled and uncontrollable, making the comparison to floodwater a very valid analogy.

I didn't know that floodwater did vital jobs and paid taxes. Just goes to show - you learn something new every day.

 

[radamfi]

Of course we're not going to see the entire population of the EU migrating to the UK.

So it is irrelevant. Why doesn't the whole of Europe move to Luxembourg, the richest country in the EU? Why are there so many people left in Rochdale, West Wales, Cornwall and Jaywick when they have free movement to move to London? There are many reasons why people don't leave where they come from, for example friends and family, the cost of living and general pride in where they live regardless of how poor the area is. Furthermore, people who want to migrate have the whole of Europe to choose from and it is quite arrogant to assume that Britain is the only place worthy of moving to.

 

[nidave]

OK - limited to the population size of the entire EU. As usual, find a way of playing with semantics rather than actually addressing the issue in hand. This is why leave is likely to win any second referendum.

Ok then how do you respond to

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 .

As things stand, EU citizens who come to the UK to find work cannot claim jobseeker's allowance during their first three months in the country.

After that they can claim for a total of 91 days, which can be split across several periods of jobseeking. They can continue claiming beyond that period if they can demonstrate that they are actively looking for a job and are likely to get it.

After a total of six months they can be removed if they still have not found a job, and have no realistic possibility of finding one, and require support from the welfare system.

These rules have been in place since early 2014, and are in line with existing EU legislation.

And...

Some exceptions from the general rule of free movement are allowed

In the case of people (not goods, services or capital), the detail of when the interference can occur is in the so-called Citizens’ Rights Directive.

In essence, this law says that the longer a migrant lives in the host country the more rights they get and the harder it is to remove them. It allows:

• 0-3 months when the UK can refuse individuals entry or deport them for public policy, public security and public health reasons
• 3 months – 5 years when the UK can deport individuals for public policy and public security reasons
• 5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security
• 10 years plus when the UK can deport individuals for imperative reasons of public security
  
  https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

and

Foreign national prisoners
The Early Removal Scheme for foreign national prisoners - ERS
This scheme lets prisoners who are foreign nationals leave the UK before their sentence is finished.
Information will be sent to the Borders and Immigration Agency about you.
The Borders and Immigration Agency will tell you if you are going to be leaving the
UK and sort out your travel back to your home country.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB-Foreign national prisoners.pdf

 

[Ken H]

Ok then how do you respond to

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 .

As things stand, EU citizens who come to the UK to find work cannot claim jobseeker's allowance during their first three months in the country.

After that they can claim for a total of 91 days, which can be split across several periods of jobseeking. They can continue claiming beyond that period if they can demonstrate that they are actively looking for a job and are likely to get it.

After a total of six months they can be removed if they still have not found a job, and have no realistic possibility of finding one, and require support from the welfare system.

These rules have been in place since early 2014, and are in line with existing EU legislation.

And...

Some exceptions from the general rule of free movement are allowed

In the case of people (not goods, services or capital), the detail of when the interference can occur is in the so-called Citizens’ Rights Directive.

In essence, this law says that the longer a migrant lives in the host country the more rights they get and the harder it is to remove them. It allows:

• 0-3 months when the UK can refuse individuals entry or deport them for public policy, public security and public health reasons
• 3 months – 5 years when the UK can deport individuals for public policy and public security reasons
• 5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security
• 10 years plus when the UK can deport individuals for imperative reasons of public security
  
  https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

and how many does the UK actually deport? The process is probably complicated and expensive.

 

[nidave]

and how many does the UK actually deport? The process is probably complicated and expensive.

How is that the fault of the EU - the Rules allow for it. The fact we cant mange to sort anything properly is not the EU's problem.

 

[Ken H]

How is that the fault of the EU - the Rules allow for it. The fact we cant mange to sort anything properly is not the EU's problem.

Maybe rulings by the ECJ and the ECHR cause difficulties.

 

[nidave]

Maybe rulings by the ECJ and the ECHR cause difficulties.

Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim considering the ECJ and the ECHR are there to apply and rule on EU legislation and its still EU legislation so something doesn't add up in your post.

 

[HH]

Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim considering the ECJ and the ECHR are there to apply and rule on EU legislation and its still EU legislation so something doesn't add up in your post.

Of course he can't. It's Project Scare.

 

[nidave]

Of course he can't. It's Project Scare.

LOL

The Nasty ECJ and the EAT (European Appeal Tribunal) who ruled to have regular and settled overtime, compulsory overtime and commission included in the calculation of your holiday pay. Which is benefiting 10's of thousands of employees but the UK government has not decided if it has to be compulsory (after refusing to allow it initially for UK workers when they took their employers to a tribunal and had to go to the EU) - so employees still have to take employers (or threaten them) to a tribunal.

 

[Ken H]

Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim considering the ECJ and the ECHR are there to apply and rule on EU legislation and its still EU legislation so something doesn't add up in your post.

all senior courts create law through precedent. Once a senior court has established a particular point of law all inferior courts have to follow that judgement. But a court of equal standing or a senior court can overrule the precedent.

 

[dosxuk]

and how many does the UK actually deport? The process is probably complicated and expensive.

How does it (probably) compare to the process of deporting someone to a non EU country?

Maybe rulings by the ECJ and the ECHR cause difficulties.

Newsflash, the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU and we aren't leaving it. They will still be able to meddle with our deportations even if we crash out of the EU.

 

[nidave]

Of course he can't. It's Project Scare.

all senior courts create law through precedent. Once a senior court has established a particular point of law all inferior courts have to follow that judgement. But a court of equal standing or a senior court can overrule the precedent.

So that's a no then - you cant provide any evidence to back up your claim that...

Maybe rulings by the ECJ and the ECHR cause difficulties.

Can you explain why the law has not been changed in the EU if the ECJ and the ECHR have set case law???

 

[bramling]

How is that the fault of the EU - the Rules allow for it. The fact we cant mange to sort anything properly is not the EU's problem.

I can’t help but smile at this. The leave “side” are supposedly the nasty ones, yet here we have remainers tacitly advocating deportations...

Surely it’s far better to restrict people entering in the first place on so many levels?

 

[bramling]

So it is irrelevant. Why doesn't the whole of Europe move to Luxembourg, the richest country in the EU? Why are there so many people left in Rochdale, West Wales, Cornwall and Jaywick when they have free movement to move to London? There are many reasons why people don't leave where they come from, for example friends and family, the cost of living and general pride in where they live regardless of how poor the area is. Furthermore, people who want to migrate have the whole of Europe to choose from and it is quite arrogant to assume that Britain is the only place worthy of moving to.

How on earth does that make it irrelevant? It was irrelevant in the 90s because generally the numbers didn’t cause a problem. It’s become very much more relevant since due to the goalposts shifting.

The problem the remain side continues to have is that there is simply no answer to the fundamental problem that within the EU we can not control EU immigration. For as long as that remains a salient issue amongst the wider population, and time and again opinion polls show that it is, those advocating remain have a problem - unless the EU suddenly changes its position.

What we all on this thread think is irrelevant, it’s the adding up of numbers across the wider populace that matters.

 

[nidave]

I can’t help but smile at this. The leave “side” are supposedly the nasty ones, yet here we have remainers tacitly advocating deportations...

Surely it’s far better to restrict people entering in the first place on so many levels?

I wish you would make up your mind - the EU letting millions here and letting them settle and there is nothing the UK can do about it - that's the thrust of your argument. (well unlimited is your argument but lets not go back to your exact wording as that's petty apparently ) - ween it's refuted this with facts you are now for the side of immigration. Try and stick to a story for a few pages at least. Your contradictions may get lost as people wont read back any further.

I would also like to ask where I gave my opinion about immigration. I am pretty sure I haven't said anything about my view on the subject (I am willing the be proven wrong) I have just called out other peoples views on the subject and EU Legislation / UK Law on immigration without giving an opinion.

 

[nidave]

How on earth does that make it irrelevant? It was irrelevant in the 90s because generally the numbers didn’t cause a problem. It’s become very much more relevant since due to the goalposts shifting.

The problem the remain side continues to have is that there is simply no answer to the fundamental problem that within the EU we can not control EU immigration. For as long as that remains a salient issue amongst the wider population, and time and again opinion polls show that it is, those advocating remain have a problem - unless the EU suddenly changes its position.

What we all on this thread think is irrelevant, it’s the adding up of numbers across the wider populace that matters.

You say the EU cant control immigration Your words (I have put them in bold)
Let me repeat the EU rules which the UK can apply:

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 .

As things stand, EU citizens who come to the UK to find work cannot claim jobseeker's allowance during their first three months in the country.

After that they can claim for a total of 91 days, which can be split across several periods of jobseeking. They can continue claiming beyond that period if they can demonstrate that they are actively looking for a job and are likely to get it.

After a total of six months they can be removed if they still have not found a job, and have no realistic possibility of finding one, and require support from the welfare system.

These rules have been in place since early 2014, and are in line with existing EU legislation.


Some exceptions from the general rule of free movement are allowed

In the case of people (not goods, services or capital), the detail of when the interference can occur is in the so-called Citizens’ Rights Directive.

In essence, this law says that the longer a migrant lives in the host country the more rights they get and the harder it is to remove them. It allows:

• 0-3 months when the UK can refuse individuals entry or deport them for public policy, public security and public health reasons
• 3 months – 5 years when the UK can deport individuals for public policy and public security reasons
• 5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security
• 10 years plus when the UK can deport individuals for imperative reasons of public security
  
  https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

and

Foreign national prisoners
The Early Removal Scheme for foreign national prisoners - ERS
This scheme lets prisoners who are foreign nationals leave the UK before their sentence is finished.
Information will be sent to the Borders and Immigration Agency about you.
The Borders and Immigration Agency will tell you if you are going to be leaving the
UK and sort out your travel back to your home country.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB-Foreign national prisoners.pdf

Is the point you are trying to make is essentially "them lot coming over here and working" which we cant control???