Brexit matters

class ep-09 · 25 Apr 2024

najaB said:
And, as pointed out numerous times before, those immigrants made a bad situation worse. We already didn't have enough houses, schools, hospitals, etc. for the natural population increase and demographic changes. They weren't solely responsible for the pressure of which you speak.

And how is the EU’s fault , that UK could not even cater for its “own” citizens properly ?

You also conveniently forgot to mention that more immigration was ( and still is ) from outside of the EU than inside.

Has the situation improved since brexit or it got worse ?

DynamicSpirit said:
Exactly. You compare the numbers of immigrants. By your own figures, 3M to 1.3M. That difference caused a rapid and unexpected population increase in the UK which put huge pressure on much of our infrastructure: Housing, transport, community facilities, etc. That is the issue! Nothing to do with what % of the EU population that might represent.

I was not comparing numbers , about which I could not care less - I was dismantling brexiters argument that “ uncontrolled and unlimited “ numbers of immigrants from the EU are coming to UK ( God forbid Turkey!! ).

Far less, of people from the EU in terms of percentage were and are willing to come to UK than UK citizens going to EU.

What’s hard to understand ?

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit · 25 Apr 2024

class ep-09 said:
I was not comparing numbers , about which I could not care less - I was dismantling brexiters argument that “ uncontrolled and unlimited “ numbers of immigrants from the EU are coming to UK ( God forbid Turkey!! ).

Then you're wasting your time dismantling an argument that no-one was ever making in the first place. Seriously, the concern of people who are against FoM has always been that the numbers coming into the UK are far greater than the numbers leaving the UK (with the UK Government having no meaningful ability under FoM to change that), and that difference in numbers was causing problems for the UK. No-one on the anti-FoM side cares what % of the EU population those 3M arriving from the EU represent: The issue is that 3M people require sufficient houses for 3M people and sufficient schools and hospitals for 3M people etc. etc. (minus the infrastructure for the people who left the UK under FoM). It makes not one jot of difference whether those 3M people represented 1% of 0.1% or whatever % of the population in the countries they have come from: What matters in this context is what infrastructure etc. they require in the UK.

najaB · 25 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
Does having an already bad situation mean that it's acceptable to make it even worse?

No, of course not. But far too many people blame the housing, healthcare, education, etc. crises on "the immigrants" instead of looking closer to home. They expected that the "£350 million a week" would mean that they wouldn't have to wait for an appointment, and the other empty promises.

geoffk · 25 Apr 2024

Can I interrupt the argument about immigration for a moment. I'm travelling to Switzerland via Eurostar in 3 weeks time and will be taking a digital SLR camera. I'm hoping I don't need a carnet to prove that tax has been paid on my camera when I bring it back. You need this now for musical instruments and I don't know how long these things take to arrange. I'm just trying to head off any possible problems at the border as this will be my first overseas trip since Brexit. I'm sure a carnet is needed for professional photographers but I will be a tourist. Perhaps I should take the receipt with me. Information on line suggests that tourists should be OK without a carnet but even RailTrail doesn't give me a straight answer.

najaB · 25 Apr 2024

geoffk said:
Can I interrupt the argument about immigration for a moment. I'm travelling to Switzerland via Eurostar in 3 weeks time and will be taking a digital SLR camera. I'm hoping I don't need a carnet to prove that tax has been paid on my camera when I bring it back. You need this now for musical instruments and I don't know how long these things take to arrange. I'm just trying to head off any possible problems at the border as this will be my first overseas trip since Brexit. I'm sure a carnet is needed for professional photographers but I will be a tourist. Perhaps I should take the receipt with me. Information on line suggests that tourists should be OK without a carnet but even RailTrail doesn't give me a straight answer.

As far as I know, you should be fine since a camera is a personal belonging that a tourist would be reasonably expected to take on holiday with them. If you want to do belts and braces, take some photos on your way out of the country!

E27007 · 25 Apr 2024

najaB said:
And, as pointed out numerous times before, those immigrants made a bad situation worse. We already didn't have enough houses, schools, hospitals, etc. for the natural population increase and demographic changes. They weren't solely responsible for the pressure of which you speak.

The EU permits constraints of FoM where the member state is a new acession , FoM is phased in over time. Our Mr Blair chose not to implement the constraints. So setting in motion the mass-dissatisfaction which led to Brexit

AM9 · 25 Apr 2024

E27007 said:
The EU permits constraints of FoM where the member state is a new acession , FoM is phased in over time. Our Mr Blair chose not to implement the constraints. So setting in motion the mass-dissatisfaction which led to Brexit

'Our Mr Blair' and his fellow party member and successor Mr Brown, handed all control of immigration over to a certain Mr Cameron in 2010, - who happened to be leading the political party that is still in power. If it was such an obvious error to not implement the constraints on immigration, that party had the authority and adequate opportunity to correect that error, but they did nothing. Blaming a previous government is a cop-out.

JamesT · 26 Apr 2024

AM9 said:
'Our Mr Blair' and his fellow party member and successor Mr Brown, handed all control of immigration over to a certain Mr Cameron in 2010, - who happened to be leading the political party that is still in power. If it was such an obvious error to not implement the constraints on immigration, that party had the authority and adequate opportunity to correect that error, but they did nothing. Blaming a previous government is a cop-out.

The right to constrain freedom of movement for new members of the EU is part of the accession treaties. It’s structured as an initial 2 years with a couple of options to extend afterwards up to a maximum of 7 years. If we didn’t put restrictions in for the 2004 enlargement, there’s nothing a government elected in 2010 can do about it.

E27007 · 26 Apr 2024

JamesT said:
The right to constrain freedom of movement for new members of the EU is part of the accession treaties. It’s structured as an initial 2 years with a couple of options to extend afterwards up to a maximum of 7 years. If we didn’t put restrictions in for the 2004 enlargement, there’s nothing a government elected in 2010 can do about it.

In addition , Mr Blair set the sails for Britain to adopt the Euro currency, the currency analogous to a burning building without fire-escape exits, luckily, Gordon Brown dropped the anchor on such a voyage to a shipwreck

AM9 · 26 Apr 2024

JamesT said:
The right to constrain freedom of movement for new members of the EU is part of the accession treaties. It’s structured as an initial 2 years with a couple of options to extend afterwards up to a maximum of 7 years. If we didn’t put restrictions in for the 2004 enlargement, there’s nothing a government elected in 2010 can do about it.

The right to reside in another EU country was dependent on the individual and any of their family members' ability to ensure that they do not become a burden on the host state. In reality, this was generally achieved as visitors were net contributors to the UK state both a workers and tax payers. They didn't get assisted housing and used their EHIC in the event of needing unplanned health treatment. Fo r some reason UK governments from 2004 ownwards didn't exercise this rule.

REVUpminster · 26 Apr 2024

There's an irony in The Telegraph today. Illegal immigrants that France does very little to stop leaving the beaches upon landing in Britain, many end up going to Ulster and crossing the open border into Ireland back into the EU.

simonw · 26 Apr 2024

geoffk said:
Can I interrupt the argument about immigration for a moment. I'm travelling to Switzerland via Eurostar in 3 weeks time and will be taking a digital SLR camera. I'm hoping I don't need a carnet to prove that tax has been paid on my camera when I bring it back. You need this now for musical instruments and I don't know how long these things take to arrange. I'm just trying to head off any possible problems at the border as this will be my first overseas trip since Brexit. I'm sure a carnet is needed for professional photographers but I will be a tourist. Perhaps I should take the receipt with me. Information on line suggests that tourists should be OK without a carnet but even RailTrail doesn't give me a straight answer.

There is as near to bzero chance as makes,no difference that you will be asked about your camera and where you bought it, unless there is something else that causes customs to stop you and then it will be the least of your worries.

class ep-09 · 26 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
Then you're wasting your time dismantling an argument that no-one was ever making in the first place. Seriously, the concern of people who are against FoM has always been that the numbers coming into the UK are far greater than the numbers leaving the UK (with the UK Government having no meaningful ability under FoM to change that), and that difference in numbers was causing problems for the UK. No-one on the anti-FoM side cares what % of the EU population those 3M arriving from the EU represent: The issue is that 3M people require sufficient houses for 3M people and sufficient schools and hospitals for 3M people etc. etc. (minus the infrastructure for the people who left the UK under FoM). It makes not one jot of difference whether those 3M people represented 1% of 0.1% or whatever % of the population in the countries they have come from: What matters in this context is what infrastructure etc. they require in the UK.

I agree , I am wasting my time ….

But, I will try again.

Before referendum no one had idea how many people from the EU lived in the UK and how many UK immigrants lived in the EU .
We only knew it since when Settled Status Scheme was put in place and EU countries citizens could join that scheme .
Every brexit advocate told ( LIED ) to the public that it is “unlimited” number and 450milion more of EU citizens and 80mil + Turks are standing on UK doorstep ready to swamp and invade The Blighty tomorrow .

It worked out that only tiny percentage - less than 1% of EU citizens were interested living here (3mil out of 400mil ), while more than twice that percentage of Brits wanted to live in the EU (1,3mil of 65mil ) .

Conclusion is : far from “unlimited “ there were much less people in terms percentage of population ready to move to UK from the EU than from UK to EU .

That is my point, and I do not care at all about the real numbers and if UK’s infrastructure was or wasn’t ready to absorb them.

I wanted to point one of many lies told by brexiters .

Enthusiast · 26 Apr 2024

class ep-09 said:
Understand ?

No I don't.

This debate started when it was suggested that, under FoM, more people had moved from the UK to settle in the EU than had moved from the EU to settle in the UK. I produced figures showing that was incorrect and that the excess (EU to UK over UK to EU) was probably about 2m. We could argue over the exact number (and I doubt anybody really knows) but it seems common ground that the excess is that way and it is fairly well accepted that the number is 2m +/- a bit.

The result of this is that, regardless of what percentage of the various populations those numbers represent, the EU27 was blessed with accommodation freed up for 2m people (with the consequential reduction in pressure on their public services) whilst the UK had to find accommodation for that number(with the consequential extra burden on public services).

You immediately muddied the waters:

class ep-09 said:
Comparing numbers of UK citizens living in EU (1.3mil out of 67mil ) and EU citizens (3mil out of 400mil ) living in the UK , it looks that higher percentage of UK citizens prefers to live in the EU than percentage of EU citizens living in the UK.

Whilst you may not be interested in the absolute numbers, it is those numbers who have to be accommodated and whatever percentages they represent, the UK had to cope with an increase of 2m people, whilst the EU27 enjoyed a 2m loss. Whilst FoM existed, the vast majority of people both in the UK and in the EU were happy where the were. But some took advantage of FoM - more in the EU than in the UK (which is scarcely surprising since there are far more people in the EU27 than in the UK).. To make a proper comparison of percentages you would have to examine the numbers who moved from each country and which countries they moved to - an exercise in futility I would suggest. But I have already shown that >5% of Lithuanians now live in the UK and 2.6% of Portuguese live here. By contrast, the country receiving the most UK people moving elsewhere is Spain. Around 300,000 Brits live in Spain but this represents only about 0.45% of the UK population.

class ep-09 said:
It worked out that only tiny percentage - less than 1% of EU citizens were interested living here (3mil out of 400mil ), while more than twice that percentage of Brits wanted to live in the EU (1,3mil of 65mil ) .

Conclusion is : far from “unlimited “ there were very less people in terms percentage of population ready to move to UK from the EU than from UK to EU .

Those statements are disingenuous. We are discussing what happened under FoM whilst the UK was an EU member and, as above, you would have to consider all movements, not just EU27 to UK.

class ep-09 said:
Every brexit advocate told ( LIED ) to the public that it is “unlimited” number and 450milion more of EU citizens and 80mil + Turks are standing on UK doorstep ready to swamp and invade The Blighty tomorrow .

The only lie in what you've said is the introduction of Turks into the frame. It is not a lie to say that 450m people had the unfettered right to settle in the UK. It is factually correct. Nobody with any sense believed they were all standing on the doorstep waiting to come in (if so, why didn't they come earlier?) and nobody with any sense believed the Turks were involved in the scheme. As I've said frequently: anybody casting a vote, be it is an Election for the Parish Council or a referendum, who makes their choice based on what politicians tell them could or might happen is foolish. There were lies told on both sides before the referendum because that's what many politicians do.

simonw · 26 Apr 2024

Enthusiast said:
No I don't.

This debate started when it was suggested that, under FoM, more people had moved from the UK to settle in the EU than had moved from the EU to settle in the UK. I produced figures showing that was incorrect and that the excess (EU to UK over UK to EU) was probably about 2m. We could argue over the exact number (and I doubt anybody really knows) but it seems common ground that the excess is that way and it is fairly well accepted that the number is 2m +/- a bit.

The result of this is that, regardless of what percentage of the various populations those numbers represent, the EU27 was blessed with accommodation freed up for 2m people (with the consequential reduction in pressure on their public services) whilst the UK had to find accommodation for that number(with the consequential extra burden on public services).

You immediately muddied the waters:

Whilst you may not be interested in the absolute numbers, it is those numbers who have to be accommodated and whatever percentages they represent, the UK had to cope with an increase of 2m people, whilst the EU27 enjoyed a 2m loss. Whilst FoM existed, the vast majority of people both in the UK and in the EU were happy where the were. But some took advantage of FoM - more in the EU than in the UK (whic. To make a proper comparison of percentages you would have to examine the numbers who moved from each country and which countries they moved to - an exercise in futility I would suggest. But I have already shown that >5% of Lithuanians now live in the UK and 2.6% of Portuguese live here. By contrast, the country receiving the most UK people moving elsewhere is Spain. Around 300,000 Brits live in Spain but this represents only about 0.45% of the UK population.

Those statements are disingenuous. We are discussing what happened under FoM whilst the UK was an EU member. To make a fair comparison you would have to look at all the people who moved to different EU countries, including those who moved from the remaining 27 member nations (say) from Bulgaria to (say) Germany. Much as it suits your argument, you cannot treat the EU as a single entity and the UK as a stand alone country. Whilst FoM existed, the vast majority of people both in the UK and in the rest of the EU were happy where the were. But some took advantage of FoM - more in the EU than in the UK (which is scarcely surprising as there are about seven times more people in the EU27). But there was more to FoM that between the EU27 and the UK - much more.

The only lie in what you've said is the introduction of Turks into the frame. It is not a lie to say that 450m people had the unfettered right to settle in the UK. It is factually correct. Nobody with any sense believed they were all standing on the doorstep waiting to come in (if so, why didn't they come earlier?) and nobody with any sense believed the Turks were involved in the scheme. As I've said frequently: anybody casting a vote, be it is an Election for the Parish Council or a referendum, who makes their choice based on what politicians tell them could or might happen is foolish. There were lies told on both sides before the referendum because that's what many politicians do.

450 million people did not have the unfettered right to settle in the UK. The UK could have, as other EU countries do, restricted the right to settle to those who found a job or had the means to support themselves independently of the state. For whatever reason, we couldn't be bothered to operate such a system of checks.

Enthusiast · 26 Apr 2024

simonw said:
For whatever reason, we couldn't be bothered to operate such a system of checks.

But we didn't. In any case, how do you suggest governments check up on arrivals who, when travelling between Schengen countries, rarely go through a form of border control, and when travelling from a non-Schengen country need only wave a passport. The numbers involved run into tens of millions. Effectively all EU citizens can travel between member nations untroubled and whilst the UK was a member that meant 450m people had the unfettered right to settle here. Nobody was going to check whether or not they had a job.

simonw · 26 Apr 2024

Enthusiast said:
But we didn't. In any case, how do you suggest governments check up on arrivals who, when travelling between Schengen countries, rarely go through a form of border control, and when travelling from a non-Schengen country need only wave a passport. The numbers involved run into tens of millions. Effectively all EU citizens can travel between member nations untroubled and whilst the UK was a member that meant 450m people had the unfettered right to settle here. Nobody was going to check whether or not they had a job.

Other countries within the eu do so. As we weren't in schengan it would have been even easier for us to do so.

JamesT · 26 Apr 2024

simonw said:
Other countries within the eu do so. As we weren't in schengan it would have been even easier for us to do so.

Don't EU countries do that by requiring everyone who lives in the country to register with the local authority so they can keep track of where you are? Whereas although we may have a harder border, if you're inside the country there is no requirement to tell the authorities anything.
How much would it have cost to set up the bureaucracy to monitor everyone in the UK like that?

RT4038 · 26 Apr 2024

simonw said:
Other countries within the eu do so. As we weren't in schengan it would have been even easier for us to do so.

Other countries in the EU do so by having systems of identity cards, registration of those resident, social security/ health care by pseudo insurance schemes etc., all of which would be seen in the UK as increasing Govt. control and changing our systems and way of life to that of the EU. I suggest that these control measures would not be acceptable here and it is disingenuous to be suggesting that Tony Blair or anyone else really could have brought in such changes.

E27007 · 26 Apr 2024

JamesT said:
Don't EU countries do that by requiring everyone who lives in the country to register with the local authority so they can keep track of where you are? Whereas although we may have a harder border, if you're inside the country there is no requirement to tell the authorities anything.
How much would it have cost to set up the bureaucracy to monitor everyone in the UK like that?

My friend and work colleague arrived in the UK 2003, a gifted man, degree in Computer Science and multilingual, now running a succesful IT business, around 2010 we were discussing immigration into the UK under FoM, he is native Dutch but spent several years working in Germany.
He described how tough it was to settle as an immigrant worker from a member state in Germany, the authorities rigorously enforce the requirement for an immigrant to be self-supporting, all residents of Germany have to comply with prompt registration of their address and details with the state at all times, in his exact words, in Germany you can run but you cannot hide, you will soon be caught out if you do not follow the rules.
He told me he had to work and self-support for several years before he gained access to social benefits in Germany. He also described his native country of Holland as also being strict in the rules of self-support.
He described Britain as an easy touch,a fact understood by immigrants and the UK was too attractive to immigrants simply for the capacity to duck under the state radar and gain access to state resources without too much effort due to lax controls.

bahnause · 26 Apr 2024

RT4038 said:
Other countries in the EU do so by having systems of identity cards, registration of those resident, social security/ health care by pseudo insurance schemes etc., all of which would be seen in the UK as increasing Govt. control and changing our systems and way of life to that of the EU.

I don't live in the EU, but we have a very strict system when it comes to registering your place of residence. It sounds like a chore at the beginning, but once you registered your adress, everything else becomes so much easier. All your tax documents are delivered automatically, your voting card, even your health care benefits are taken care of without you even having to apply. No running around with gas bills to get a bank account or similar stuff.

Enthusiast · 26 Apr 2024

E27007 said:
He described Britain as an easy touch,a fact understood by immigrants and the UK was too attractive to immigrants simply for the capacity to duck under the state radar and gain access to state resources without too much effort due to lax controls.

Indeed. And whoever is responsible for that is immaterial. That was the situation and it meant EU citizens had near enough unfettered access to settle here. If successive UK governments had perhaps been more diligent and took steps to ensure that the control that was available was utilised, Brexit may never have happened. It was plainly obvious that anybody from the EU who wanted to settle here could and many of them did. There were never any requirements on any of them to prove their self-sufficiency. But governments were supremely arrogant in dismissing concerns about this issue, and the rest, as they say, is history.

najaB · 26 Apr 2024

Enthusiast said:
This debate started when it was suggested that, under FoM, more people had moved from the UK to settle in the EU than had moved from the EU to settle in the UK.

In absolute terms, no. As a percentage of population, yes.

DynamicSpirit · 26 Apr 2024

najaB said:
In absolute terms, no. As a percentage of population, yes.

Which is irrelevant.

To give a similar (but more extreme) example to illustrate the point, think about St. Ives in Cornwall, a location that typifies the problem of outsiders buying 2nd homes or moving there in large numbers, causing locals to struggle to find affordable places to live.

What % of the non-native-St.Ives UK population do you reckon have moved to St. Ives? I don't know the exact answer but I know it's going to be less than 0.015% (because 0.015% of the UK population comes to about 10K, which is the total population of St. Ives). On the other hand, what % of St. Ives people have moved elsewhere? We can pretty sure the answer is a lot more than 0.015% (which would be 15 people). Therefore we can deduce that a much greater % of the population of St. Ives have left the town for the rest of the UK than the % of the rest of the UK that have moved to St. Ives.

I'm gonna guess that if you went to St. Ives and told the people there that they can't possibly have a problem with 2nd homes or outsiders moving in because a higher % of the local population are moving out, then you probably wouldn't get a very agreeable response. But that's exactly the same logic as trying to compare FoM immigration to the UK by % of the EU population.

najaB · 26 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
I'm gonna guess that if you went to St. Ives and told the people there that they can't possibly have a problem with 2nd homes or outsiders moving in because a higher % of the local population are moving out, then you probably wouldn't get a very agreeable response. But that's exactly the same logic as trying to compare FoM immigration to the UK by % of the EU population.

Of course, St. Ives could have recognised the popularity, allowed additional housebuilding and enjoyed the economic benefits that would come with being a larger town.

E27007 · 27 Apr 2024

Enthusiast said:
Indeed. And whoever is responsible for that is immaterial. That was the situation and it meant EU citizens had near enough unfettered access to settle here. If successive UK governments had perhaps been more diligent and took steps to ensure that the control that was available was utilised, Brexit may never have happened. It was plainly obvious that anybody from the EU who wanted to settle here could and many of them did. There were never any requirements on any of them to prove their self-sufficiency. But governments were supremely arrogant in dismissing concerns about this issue, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Being "self-sufficient / self-supporting" should be more than simply having a job, my Dutch friend and colleugue arrived into the UK to work having landed a good salaried position, he certainly paid plenty of income tax, he was certainly self-sufficient, and he was contributing his fair and just share of taxes towards the upkeep of the infrastructure of the UK.

Meole · 27 Apr 2024

Enthusiast said:
Indeed. And whoever is responsible for that is immaterial. That was the situation and it meant EU citizens had near enough unfettered access to settle here. If successive UK governments had perhaps been more diligent and took steps to ensure that the control that was available was utilised, Brexit may never have happened. It was plainly obvious that anybody from the EU who wanted to settle here could and many of them did. There were never any requirements on any of them to prove their self-sufficiency. But governments were supremely arrogant in dismissing concerns about this issue, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Hence we always paid Poland for health treatment for British people who required health treatment there every year but could not request the obviously far higher reciprocal amount because we had no record of the citizenship of people the NHS treat.

Enthusiast · 27 Apr 2024

Meole said:
Hence we always paid Poland for health treatment for British people who required health treatment there every year but could not request the obviously far higher reciprocal amount because we had no record of the citizenship of people the NHS treat.

And part of the reason for that is that doctors pronounced that they are doctors not revenue collectors. They have a very valid point. However, other nations seem perfectly capable of collecting payment (or EHIC details) when treating patients. The NHS has almost as many support staff as it has medics so they should be able to figure out a way to ensure payment is collected for those not entitled to free treatment.

75A · 27 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
Which is irrelevant.

To give a similar (but more extreme) example to illustrate the point, think about St. Ives in Cornwall, a location that typifies the problem of outsiders buying 2nd homes or moving there in large numbers, causing locals to struggle to find affordab

Shouldn't you be blaming the residents who sold their properties, no doubt at great profit to the 'incomers'. Greed is human nature, look at the people who were living in Council houses who bought them at greatly reduced prices and later sold them on for the 'market' price.
I bought a brand new house in Milton Keynes in 1999, one of the first in what was still a building site, with no made up roads etc and a year of, lorries, dirt and all that goes on in a major new development. Two and a half years later when it was all still pristine, I sold it for more than double what I had paid for it.

317 forever · 27 Apr 2024

renegademaster said:
You can have customs union without FoM , see Turkey

When we were in the Common Market prior to it growing into the EU, that was equivalent to being in the Customs Union.

Brexit matters

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member