EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Howardh]

As I've said multiple times there are no immigration checks on anyone crossing between Ireland and the UK, whether the crossing is over the land border or by air or sea. If you want to reach the British mainland as a neer-do-well there's really no need to to cross into Northern Ireland unless that's where you want to be.

You are contradicting yourself.
Q; Does a post-Brexit Britain (UK) want to control and "keep out" unwanted immigrants?
If the answer is yes - then...
- you can have all the immigration officials at UK airports and ports you want, but....
- if you leave the Irish Border unmanned and people really want to come but they can't via the ports and airports...
- they will simply get into Ireland legally and then cross the border into the UK unknown and unaccounted for.
The only way round that is to re-install a hard border across the island of Ireland and check anyone and everyone who enters the UK that way. A hard border, which Brexit promised wouldn't hapen.

 

[mmh]

Or just an employer who uses a loophole in the system. There are Eastern Europeans working in the UK not getting the UK minimum wage but legally as they are employed through an employer in their home country instead of one in the UK.

Well there is one of the main selling points for leaving the EU and freedom of movement for workers. Pretending that it's a wonderful single economy while there are such massive disparities in relative prices, incomes and laws is utter nonsense.

 

[Howardh]

Is is not a bit of a contradiction to state that the EU will insist on a hard border, and that this will be entirely the fault of the U.K.?
The EU as an institution has always had treaty provision for the eventuality that member states may leave if they wish. The U.K. has always compromised on the border between Eire and NI so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to consider that the EU should also show some flexibility, since this will benefit Eire (one of its member states).

In a way you are partially right, there is some flexibility but that only applies to very small nations on the periphery such as Andorra, san Marino etc; but add to the equation that there are World Trade Organisation rules to adhere to which trump EU ones, and the UK will be a singular part of the WTO (unless you want out of that too..) and the other members of the WTO won't take kindly to the EU (and Ireland in particular) and UK having "special arrangements" ie. an open border.

But even so, why would other countries the EU want a special arrangement between the UK and Ireland when they themselves can't have one and lose out?

Seems to me Brexit want all the rules bent to suit themselves, when the rules are there for a reason, and that's to protect the integrity of the single market. To me it shows how important it is the be part of the single market. Stay, and all these difficulties disappear overnight and we would still be leaving the EU as per referendum.

 

[mmh]

You are contradicting yourself.
Q; Does a post-Brexit Britain (UK) want to control and "keep out" unwanted immigrants?
If the answer is yes - then...
- you can have all the immigration officials at UK airports and ports you want, but....
- if you leave the Irish Border unmanned and people really want to come but they can't via the ports and airports...
- they will simply get into Ireland legally and then cross the border into the UK unknown and unaccounted for.
The only way round that is to re-install a hard border across the island of Ireland and check anyone and everyone who enters the UK that way. A hard border, which Brexit promised wouldn't hapen.

I really don't know how many more times I can say it or in how many different ways. I have not said what you're claiming I have. I don't want the Irish land border manned. I don't want immigration checks on people entering the UK from Ireland at airports and ports. I don't want that changed from the current arrangements. I do know that EU citizens could enter Ireland legally and then the UK illegally. I do know that non-EU citizens could do exactly that today.

I don't care. I don't think there would be a sudden influx of EU citizens suddenly wanting to live / work illegally in Britain. Why would there be?

Unlike the remainers seem to bizarrely be, I'm really not that concerned about possible illegal immigration over the Irish border because the possibility for it already exists today, and - here's the thing - I'm just not that fussed about it at all. Illegal immigration is really a remain red-herring. I didn't vote leave because of it, and I'm not anti-immigration. I am anti-freedom of movement.

 

[pemma]

Well there is one of the main selling points for leaving the EU and freedom of movement for workers. Pretending that it's a wonderful single economy while there are such massive disparities in relative prices, incomes and laws is utter nonsense.

Yet the EU freedom of movement reduces the red tape for a French tutor/teacher to come over here to teach French or a British one to teach English in Italy. One of the best points Farage has ever made is freedom of movement works fine if only western European countries are involved - British people want to work in western European, just as much as those in western European countries want to work here. If the EU were to offer to restrict freedom of movement from Eastern to Western Europe that would be a massive game changer and would make remaining seem a lot more attractive - almost the exact opposite effect of what would happen if Turkey joined the EU and was given freedom of movement.

 

[pemma]

I didn't vote leave because of it, and I'm not anti-immigration. I am anti-freedom of movement.

What's the point of scrapping freedom of movement, if it isn't going to be policed properly? It'd be like reducing speed limits on the roads and not bothering to change speed camera settings.

 

[Howardh]

I don't care. I don't think there would be a sudden influx of EU citizens suddenly wanting to live / work illegally in Britain. Why would there be?
.

In that case, let's stay in the EU then!!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep being told by Brexiters that there are too many immigrants taking all us jobs and houses and filling our schools and NHS and it's a burden. Now I find it's not an issue and there's no influs and Farage's Turkey poster was all wrong and there aren't 75 million Turks on the march.

So why can't we pack this whole nonsense in and do what's best for business, travellers, workers and everyone else...stay!!!

 

[mmh]

Yet the EU freedom of movement reduces the red tape for a French tutor/teacher to come over here to teach French or a British one to teach English in Italy.

I think we'll survive somehow, besides emigrating wasn't invented by the EU.

One of the best points Farage has ever made is freedom of movement works fine if only western European countries are involved - British people want to work in western European, just as much as those in western European countries want to work here.

A two-tier EU? Who decides which countries are in the top tier and have acceptable citizens? The top tier itself? (Although that's not far removed from how the EU actually works)

If the EU were to offer to restrict freedom of movement from Eastern to Western Europe that would be a massive game changer and would make remaining seem a lot more attractive - almost the exact opposite effect of what would happen if Turkey joined the EU and was given freedom of movement.

It doesn't make it seem any more attractive to me. A system where all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others? I suppose it does fit though, the EU is quite Orwellian.

 

[pemma]

I think we'll survive somehow, besides emigrating wasn't invented by the EU.

But a lot has changed since we joined the EU - the first ever International train from the UK was introduced while we were in the EU.

It doesn't make it seem any more attractive to me. A system where all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others? I suppose it does fit though, the EU is quite Orwellian.

Or you can just say if (hypothetically) 20000 Britons have left for other EU countries this year, Britain has to accept 20000 from EU countries with priority given to countries which have accepted Britons. Nice and fair solution where every country is equal.

 

[bramling]

I think we'll survive somehow, besides emigrating wasn't invented by the EU.



A two-tier EU? Who decides which countries are in the top tier and have acceptable citizens? The top tier itself? (Although that's not far removed from how the EU actually works)



It doesn't make it seem any more attractive to me. A system where all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others? I suppose it does fit though, the EU is quite Orwellian.

I would certainly feel more comfortable with freedom of movement being divided between east and west, at least until such times as the eastern economies are more convergent (if that ever happens). I would still vote leave though.

 

[mmh]

In that case, let's stay in the EU then!!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep being told by Brexiters that there are too many immigrants taking all us jobs and houses and filling our schools and NHS and it's a burden.

Not on here you don't. None of the handful of presumably leave supporting posters on this thread in the past day have started arguments about immigration. The remain supporting posters on the other hand seem rather obsessed with it.

Now I find it's not an issue and there's no influs and Farage's Turkey poster was all wrong and there aren't 75 million Turks on the march.

Turkey has wanted to join the EU for decades, that's no secret, and given past experience of when countries with poorer economies are given freedom of movement to Britain, yes it's reasonable to assume there'd be considerable immigration from Turkey if that happened.

So why can't we pack this whole nonsense in and do what's best for business, travellers, workers and everyone else...stay!!!

Because it's not all about just wanting to stop Johnny Foreigner coming here.

 

[mmh]

But a lot has changed since we joined the EU - the first ever International train from the UK was introduced while we were in the EU.

Exactly. The EU has changed a lot since we first joined it too. I used to think the EEC was, overall, a good idea. I should have listened to Tony Benn, he was on the nail about it all.

Or you can just say if (hypothetically) 20000 Britons have left for other EU countries this year, Britain has to accept 20000 from EU countries with priority given to countries which have accepted Britons. Nice and fair solution where every country is equal.

So we ditch one of the "fundamental freedoms" and introduce a quota scheme? Not entirely disagreeing with that, but in that case why not have our scheme run from Whitehall not Brussels?

 

[pemma]

So we ditch one of the "fundamental freedoms" and introduce a quota scheme? Not entirely disagreeing with that, but in that case why not have our scheme run from Whitehall not Brussels?

If freedom of movement is such a toxic policy, surely it could cause other EU countries to leave in the future as well. If that were to happen wouldn't one universal scheme be much easier to implement than having to have separate agreements with lots of different countries.

 

[Bromley boy]

In that case, let's stay in the EU then!!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep being told by Brexiters that there are too many immigrants taking all us jobs and houses and filling our schools and NHS and it's a burden. Now I find it's not an issue and there's no influs and Farage's Turkey poster was all wrong and there aren't 75 million Turks on the march.

So why can't we pack this whole nonsense in and do what's best for business, travellers, workers and everyone else...stay!!!

Well my leave vote had little to do with immigration, along with many others, I’m sure.

 

[AM9]

Just noted that in the Telegraph (won't link or woute as it's behind a paywall) there's a headline that May's conceded her two customs options are unworkable. That will leave her two options; the EEA model with open borders and FoM or the hard border option which would probably re-ignight the troubles, end the CTA and tear up the GFA.

I think that only the desperate members of the cabinet hadn't already realised that those two options were dead.
What I found very interesting was an article in yesterday's Telegraph by Juliet Samuel entitled: "Brexiteers think they're in control. In reality, their position is weak".
It details the recent machinations in the trade negotiations and specifically the NI/Eire border issue. It maintains that the virtually inevitable cave-in on the two current suggestions (confirmed in today's news) will be followed by her just signing up to a solution that satisfies the EU, Eire, NI, most of the Conservative party and most of Parliament.
It asks what would then be the options for the hard-line leavers? Well:

they could try to force her out. That would require a vote of no confidence from Conservative MPs, not much chance of that given that there are no more than 100 hard-liners against over 200 loyalists.
they could vote to reject the deal that she does negotiate if it is seen (by them) to be too soft, (using the 'meaningful' vote amendment made by those supporting remaining - how ironic). That would most likely result in her being free to appeal to a cross-party remain population which in numbers and political heavyweights be able to either send her back to Brussels to get a better deal, or even a second referendum.​

Ms Samuel's conclusion is that despite the hard-line leavers' huffing and puffing, they have lost control, and every day that passes, it looks more unlikely that they will get it back.
Just reflect on the fact that the Telegraph is probably the most serious anti-remain newspaper there is. Mmmm, it was an interesting read indeed.

 

[Howardh]

I think that only the desperate members of the cabinet hadn't already realised that those two options were dead.
What I found very interesting was an article in yesterday's Telegraph by Juliet Samuel entitled: "Brexiteers think they're in control. In reality, their position is weak".
It details the recent machinations in the trade negotiations and specifically the NI/Eire border issue. It maintains that the virtually inevitable cave-in on the two current suggestions (confirmed in today's news) will be followed by her just signing up to a solution that satisfies the EU, Eire, NI, most of the Conservative party and most of Parliament.
It asks what would then be the options for the hard-line leavers? Well:

they could try to force her out. That would require a vote of no confidence from Conservative MPs, not much chance of that given that there are no more than 100 hard-liners against over 200 loyalists.
they could vote to reject the deal that she does negotiate if it is seen (by them) to be too soft, (using the 'meaningful' vote amendment made by those supporting remaining - how ironic). That would most likely result in her being free to appeal to a cross-party remain population which in numbers and political heavyweights be able to either send her back to Brussels to get a better deal, or even a second referendum.​

Ms Samuel's conclusion is that despite the hard-line leavers' huffing and puffing, they have lost control, and every day that passes, it looks more unlikely that they will get it back.
Just reflect on the fact that the Telegraph is probably the most serious anti-remain newspaper there is. Mmmm, it was an interesting read indeed.

May lost control the day she called the 2017 election. Could be argued that she called it because of an overall majority of 16 (??) it wasn't enough to see through a hard Brexit so she needed a larger one - and therefore you get the argument that the voters (both sides) saw through that and rejected that hard Brexit.
At that point she should have either (a) resigned or (b) accepted the result and tell the hard-liners to go take a long walk and ditch them out of the cabinet and gone, cap-in-hand to the EU for the Andrex Brexit.
What May did and does have on here side is that none of the big-gun pro-Brexiters want to own Brexit and take the blame when/if it all goes wrong. Too risky, you see. They've had two chances, one the day Cameron resigned and the other the day after the Election. They couldn't run away fast enough, and if anything proves how toxic Brexit is then there you are.

 

[AlterEgo]

I love how people imply that the IRA will take up arms again if a border goes between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but that the Unionists would not take up arms again if there is a border between NI and the rest of the UK?

And lack of freedom of movement (to work) does not require border checks, those people can be picked up if they attempt to actually get a job.

Loyalist paramilitaries don't have a modern tradition of aggression towards the British state.

Their campaigns of violence have been framed almost wholly around attacking republican groups and Catholics. Unlike the IRA, they have rarely attacked British state forces, unless they were engaged by them first or were attempting to weaken security allowing them better access to hit republican areas.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yet the EU freedom of movement reduces the red tape for a French tutor/teacher to come over here to teach French or a British one to teach English in Italy. One of the best points Farage has ever made is freedom of movement works fine if only western European countries are involved - British people want to work in western European, just as much as those in western European countries want to work here. If the EU were to offer to restrict freedom of movement from Eastern to Western Europe that would be a massive game changer and would make remaining seem a lot more attractive - almost the exact opposite effect of what would happen if Turkey joined the EU and was given freedom of movement.

Pigs will fly before Turkey joins the EU!

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes that's because of the CTA!
It's unlikely the CTA will exist post Brexit, unless the Custom's Union is kept.

That's incorrect.

The CTA existed long before any sort of customs union between the UK and Ireland.

Or else NI will have to stay in the EU, for there to be no hard border (this is currently in the draft legislation, and will be the plan if there isn't a customs deal)

This is not a certainty. It's entirely possible for there to be a soft border (note that a "hard border" refers strictly to physical infrastructure like customs posts).

 

[AlterEgo]

Yet the EU freedom of movement reduces the red tape for a French tutor/teacher to come over here to teach French or a British one to teach English in Italy. One of the best points Farage has ever made is freedom of movement works fine if only western European countries are involved - British people want to work in western European, just as much as those in western European countries want to work here. If the EU were to offer to restrict freedom of movement from Eastern to Western Europe that would be a massive game changer and would make remaining seem a lot more attractive - almost the exact opposite effect of what would happen if Turkey joined the EU and was given freedom of movement.

This is exactly right.

The concept of freedom of movement is far, far more attractive to residents of relatively impoverished Central and Eastern European countries than to people who live in Britain, a prosperous nation.

 

[cactustwirly]

That's incorrect.

The CTA existed long before any sort of customs union between the UK and Ireland.



This is not a certainty. It's entirely possible for there to be a soft border (note that a "hard border" refers strictly to physical infrastructure like customs posts).

But that was before the EU was created, and before Ireland joined the EU.
WTO & EU rules prevent a borderless NI, unless it has a customs agreement.

 

[AlterEgo]

WTO & EU rules prevent a borderless NI, unless it has a customs agreement.

There already is a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and there has been since 1921.

The only thing which has changed is the level of infrastructure needed.

Which rules in particular mandate the need for physical infrastructure like customs posts?

 

[EM2]

I don't want the Irish land border manned. I don't want immigration checks on people entering the UK from Ireland at airports and ports.
...
I am anti-freedom of movement.

What you want offers freedom of movement.

 

[HSTEd]

What you want offers freedom of movement.

Freedom of Movement being removed does not mean we have border guards ready to machine gun EU citizens trying to enter.

It just means that EU citizens would not be free to work in the UK without a permit.
Just like the odd rules that currently apply to those Isle of Man passport holders who do not have the right to work in non UK EU states.

 

[EM2]

Freedom of Movement being removed does not mean we have border guards ready to machine gun EU citizens trying to enter.

I don't recall suggesting that it did?

 

[pemma]

Freedom of Movement being removed does not mean we have border guards ready to machine gun EU citizens trying to enter.

It just means that EU citizens would not be free to work in the UK without a permit.
Just like the odd rules that currently apply to those Isle of Man passport holders who do not have the right to work in non UK EU states.

You seem to be referring to just freedom of movement for workers. Freedom of movement, in general, also includes a number of other things, the most well known one is the ability to travel between countries in the EU without requiring any visas, a less well known one is any pregnant woman who is an Irish resident is allowed to travel to another country within the EU to receive an abortion.

 

[HSTEd]

You seem to be referring to just freedom of movement for workers. Freedom of movement, in general, also includes a number of other things, the most well known one is the ability to travel between countries in the EU without requiring any visas, a less well known one is any pregnant woman who is an Irish resident is allowed to travel to another country within the EU to receive an abortion.

Yes, but freedom of movement (to work) is the only one that is in any way politically controversial.
Indeed Irish citizens are to be allowed entry to the UK (and indeed to work) under legislation that far predates the existance of the EU.

 

[bramling]

May lost control the day she called the 2017 election. Could be argued that she called it because of an overall majority of 16 (??) it wasn't enough to see through a hard Brexit so she needed a larger one - and therefore you get the argument that the voters (both sides) saw through that and rejected that hard Brexit.
At that point she should have either (a) resigned or (b) accepted the result and tell the hard-liners to go take a long walk and ditch them out of the cabinet and gone, cap-in-hand to the EU for the Andrex Brexit.
What May did and does have on here side is that none of the big-gun pro-Brexiters want to own Brexit and take the blame when/if it all goes wrong. Too risky, you see. They've had two chances, one the day Cameron resigned and the other the day after the Election. They couldn't run away fast enough, and if anything proves how toxic Brexit is then there you are.

I’d say May performed poorly in the election more because of a dull and flat campaign that offered little or nothing in the way of appealing policy ideas, and probably turned people off with things like the social care proposals.

 

[Bromley boy]

I’d say May performed poorly in the election more because of a dull and flat campaign that offered little or nothing in the way of appealing policy ideas, and probably turned people off with things like the social care proposals.

Yep - plus her manner is a little awkward and she isn’t exactly what you’d call charismatic. Unfortunately personality seems to trump policy for many voters these days.

 

[HSTEd]

The election was an object lesson that when you want to turn an election into a battle of personalities..... you have to make sure you have a better personality than your opponent.