The EU could insist on much more stringent control for travel between EU and GB

Meerkat · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Entirely within our controls actually. EU freedom of movement just meant that we couldn't refuse someone entry based solely on their nationality. We could still refuse entry based on public health, security or non-discriminatory policy grounds.

on grounds set and regulated by the EU

RailUK Forums

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Howardh said:
But we can't turn them away if there's no border.

I know. Hence why, despite what the Government has said repeatedly there must be a border - either in the Irish Sea or between (the Republic of) Ireland and Northern Ireland.

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
on grounds set and regulated by the EU

Nope. Sorry, on grounds set and regulated by the UK Government. Here's the actual regulation if you care to take a look:

Howardh · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
I know. Hence why, despite what the Government has said repeatedly there must be a border - either in the Irish Sea or between (the Republic of) Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Well, if it's between North and the Republic, I'm not volunteering to man it!

Howardh · 15 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
on grounds set and regulated by the EU

That we helped establish.

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Well, even when we were in the EU we could turn anyone away if we could justify it. I always had my passport checked at EU airports and also when crossing the channel, and vv when returning to the UK. So I'm at a loss to the point you're trying to make.

Freedom of movement has never meant lack of control.

Indeed even when travelling internally in the EU, I’ve still had random checks done.

That aside, you’re quite right that while we were in the EU that countries could turn people away IC they could justify it.

My main concern is with the people smuggling between France and the UK eg what was being done to combat this when we were in the EU and what is being done Post Dec?

Howardh · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
Indeed even when travelling internally in the EU, I’ve still had random checks done.

That aside, you’re quite right that while we were in the EU that countries could turn people away IC they could justify it.

My main concern is with the people smuggling between France and the UK eg what was being done to combat this when we were in the EU and what is being done Post Dec?

As pointed out on Twitter, the number of people trying to get in will be exceeded by those of us trying to leave, will the French have gunboats to stop British refugees from landing on their shores?

Xenophon PCDGS · 15 Feb 2020

Howardh said:
As pointed out on Twitter, the number of people trying to get in will be exceeded by those of us trying to leave, will the French have gunboats to stop British refugees from landing on their shores?

If the French do have gunboats as you say, why do they not use them to return those being smuggled from their country back to France whilst those craft are still in their coastal limits?

Meerkat · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Nope. Sorry, on grounds set and regulated by the UK Government. Here's the actual regulation if you care to take a look:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32011R0492:EN:NOT

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF

Which bits are relevant and do they allow us to override EU law?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Which bits are relevant and do they allow us to override EU law?

What EU law would we need to override?

Meerkat · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
What EU law would we need to override?

One that was used to stop us stopping someone enter the country.

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

Xenophon PCDGS said:
If the French do have gunboats as you say, why do they not use them to return those being smuggled from their country back to France whilst those craft are still in their coastal limits?

This is the one point I don’t like, I’m all for controlled immigration but unless I’m wrong, doesn’t international law just require any immigrant to claim asylum in the nearest safe country?

And not travel half way across Europe because the UK is seen as being the only place they want to go to.

So are the French actually doing all they can to combat people smuggling?

I’m not saying it’s entirely the fault of the EU for not being tough enough on people smuggling but the governments could and should do much more.

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
One that was used to stop us stopping someone enter the country.

No such law exists.

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
This is the one point I don’t like, I’m all for controlled immigration but unless I’m wrong, doesn’t international law just require any immigrant to claim asylum in the nearest safe country?

And if they don't claim asylum because they want to reach the UK?

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
And if they don't claim asylum because they want to reach the UK?

Because the UK is seen as a soft touch has absolutely nothing to do with their decision to reach the UK illegally?

I’m not against immigration which is done legally and controlled but what I am against is it being done illegally.

Equally, with all the money that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc have... Why don’t they do more to encourage immigration to their countries etc?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
Because the UK is seen as a soft touch has absolutely nothing to do with their decision to reach the UK illegally?

Which points to the problem (if there is one) being UK policy rather than EU policy, no?

Aictos said:
I’m not against immigration which is done legally and controlled but what I am against is it being done illegally.

There are very few people in favour of illegal immigration.

Aictos said:
Equally, with all the money that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc have... Why don’t they do more to encourage immigration to their countries etc?

They do. I believe there are something like 7 million migrant labourers in the UAE out of a total of around 9 million people.

DaleCooper · 15 Feb 2020

Xenophon PCDGS said:
If the French do have gunboats as you say, why do they not use them to return those being smuggled from their country back to France whilst those craft are still in their coastal limits?

Why would France want to stop them leaving the EU?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Which points to the problem (if there is one) being UK policy rather than EU policy, no?

Ah, wait. I think I get the point you're making - that if EU countries took at more lenient stance then people wouldn't want to reach the UK.

There's merit to that argument, but looking at some statstics (https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/france/statistics) it seems that where refugees come from countries that have serious human rights issues (such as Syria, Sudan and Iraq) rather than likely being economic migrants (e.g. Mali, Ivory Coast or Albania), the French accept the vast majority of claims. For example they accepted ~68% of Sudanese claims but only 20% of those from the Ivory Coast.

Xenophon PCDGS · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
There are very few people in favour of illegal immigration.

There seems no shortage of a certain class of employer who most certainly are in favour of what you state above and they employ these illegal immigrants, as seen in a number of television programmes where the relevant authority raid premises and find those illegal immigrants working on the premises. Does anyone know the current fine levels that can be imposed on such employers?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Xenophon PCDGS said:
There seems no shortage of a certain class of employer who most certainly are in favour of what you state above and they employ these illegal immigrants, as seen in a number of television programmes where the relevant authority raid premises and find those illegal immigrants working on the premises.

Hence why I didn't say "nobody" is in favour. Those employers are in the minority though. Bear in mind that in many (most?) cases the people are in the country legally, but do not have the right to employment.

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Does anyone know the current fine levels that can be imposed on such employers?

I believe it is up to £10,000 per employee who doesn't have the right to work.

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Ah, wait. I think I get the point you're making - that if EU countries took at more lenient stance then people wouldn't want to reach the UK.

There's merit to that argument, but looking at some statstics (https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/france/statistics) it seems that where refugees come from countries that have serious human rights issues (such as Syria, Sudan and Iraq) rather than likely being economic migrants (e.g. Mali, Ivory Coast or Albania), the French accept the vast majority of claims. For example they accepted ~68% of Sudanese claims but only 20% of those from the Ivory Coast.

Pretty much, my question still is valid which is both Pre EU membership and Post EU membership and that is simply is the UK with our European partners doing enough to combat the evil that is people smuggling but also those who break into HGVs heading to the UK risking the haulier getting a heavy fine/prison.

I’m not up to speed on what happens to the haulier if illegals are found onboard but it can’t be good.

I’m not saying we ought to get barbed wire out, mine our beaches etc but are those in power actually doing enough?

Xenophon PCDGS · 15 Feb 2020

DaleCooper said:
Why would France want to stop them leaving the EU?

Because I am sure that France must see the legal position in their own country being breached by people smugglers and they will not wish to seem to be colluding with the trade of people smuggling when it stems from their own country. Does Interpol still exist in any form these days?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
I’m not saying we ought to get barbed wire out, mine our beaches etc but are those in power actually doing enough?

We've cut our foreign aid budget and initially failed to act in any meaningful way to stop the wars in Syria, Sudan or Yemen. That says it all really.

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Because I am sure that France must see the legal position in their own country being breached by people smugglers and they will not wish to seem to be colluding with the trade of people smuggling when it stems from their own country. Does Interpol still exist in any form these days?

Yes Interpol still very much exists as it’s based in Lyon France.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
We've cut our foreign aid budget and initially failed to act in any meaningful way to stop the wars in Syria, Sudan or Yemen. That says it all really.

Charity begins at home though, while I can concur the wars in those countries are awful I do believe in the saying quoted.

DaleCooper · 15 Feb 2020

Do we still have customs men and/or police in Calais? If so will this continue now we have left the EU?

najaB · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
Charity begins at home though, while I can concur the wars in those countries are awful I do believe in the saying quoted.

Foreign aid isn't charity. It is an investment.

By spending £1 encouraging job creation and rule of law in a less-developed country you save £1000s processing the asylum claim of an immigrant from that country.

And the more prosperous and stable those countries are, the more likely they are to seek to buy our goods and services in the future.

DaleCooper · 15 Feb 2020

Aictos said:
Charity begins at home though, while I can concur the wars in those countries are awful I do believe in the saying quoted.

The 5 Most Frequently Misused Proverbs
"Charity Begins at Home"
https://www.cracked.com/article_20251_the-5-most-frequently-misused-proverbs.html

"Charity Begins at Home"

How We Use It

As a buzz term to protest against giving money to faceless strangers abroad. Google the phrase and you find a bunch of pundits and columnists all using it the same way: "Sure, some foreign country may have just been leveled by an earthquake or an exploding volcano, but there are starving people right here. We should fix the problems in our own country first -- after all, charity begins at home."

What It Originally Meant

"You should absolutely give money to those war-torn tsunami orphans, and the first step to doing so is to not be a douchebag."

"Charity begins at home" is one of those obnoxious phrases that people use to alleviate their guilt about never actually being charitable. But they are, of course, using the word "charity" in the sense that it's most commonly used today -- giving money or aid to poor people. When the phrase "charity begins at home" was first coined, the definition of "charity" was a little different. From Roman times up until recently, "charity" wasn't necessarily about giving alms. It was more of a state of mind, a mentality of kindness and benevolence. You know this if you've read a Bible, by the way -- the word for "charity" and the more general "love" are both translated from the same Greek word, "agape."

The point being, when people first started saying "charity begins at home," what they were trying to get across was that being a loving person in the home leads to being a loving person out in the world. In other words, it served as an instruction about how to be more generous, which is kind of the opposite of the way it's used today as a warning against being too generous. Or, as other experts have pointed out, only an asshole could hear "charity begins at home" and interpret it to mean that it also ends there.

Aictos · 15 Feb 2020

najaB said:
Foreign aid isn't charity. It is an investment.

By spending £1 encouraging job creation and rule of law in a less-developed country you save £1000s processing the asylum claim of an immigrant from that country.

And the more prosperous and stable those countries are, the more likely they are to seek to buy our goods and services in the future.

We also should be tackling issues such as homelessness, drug/alcohol abuse, armed forces veterans, unemployment etc.

Help those in need aboard but don’t forget about those in need closer to home.

bramling · 15 Feb 2020

Howardh said:
We made those laws....

What mechanism was (*) realistically available to change or update those laws?

The UK parliament has always had a principle that no parliament can bind its successor. The inflexible nature of the EU makes this very difficult in an EU context for one member state to change things.

(* I can’t help noting how refreshing it feels to be now referring to Britain’s EU membership in the past tense!).

The EU could insist on much more stringent control for travel between EU and GB

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member