EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[vrbarreto]

Don't worry he's trained to take out people who aren't fully behind (hard) Brexit


https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1004656199885836288

And Nadine Dorries is in the Muppets...

 

[Jonny]

Mind you, if the people smugglers are operating via Ireland then there might need to be a hard border anyway, Brexit or not...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44336357

Cross-Channel migrants 'targeting UK via Irish border'
Migrants are bypassing tougher cross-Channel security to get into the UK via Ireland, the BBC has discovered.
Smugglers are taking migrants from Calais and Dunkirk and flying them to Dublin, from where they cross the Irish border and travel onwards to London.
(article continues)

 

[furnessvale]

Mind you, if the people smugglers are operating via Ireland then there might need to be a hard border anyway, Brexit or not...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44336357

No problem. After the UK leaves the EU, it will be such an unattractive place to live* that this problem, and the Calais problem will cease to exist as thousands of illegals head the other way!........*or so remainers would have us believe.

 

[AM9]

No problem. After the UK leaves the EU, it will be such an unattractive place to live* that this problem, and the Calais problem will cease to exist as thousands of illegals head the other way!........*or so remainers would have us believe.

I doubt it. The Africans will see it as (slightly) better than the homelands that they are fleeing from, maybe a bit like Roumania (sparsely staffed health service, no environmental conscience, a few marauding ethnic cleansers - disguised as good old anglophiles etc., - just not so many droughts as back home!

 

[pemma]

No problem. After the UK leaves the EU, it will be such an unattractive place to live* that this problem, and the Calais problem will cease to exist as thousands of illegals head the other way!........*or so remainers would have us believe.

The potential illegal immigrants are going to target the countries they can get in to, not the countries with the best economic prospects - illegal immigrants don't arrive in Greece because of its' economic prospects!

 

[Howardh]

That BBC reports wha exactly what I said to my MP two weeks before the referendum, no matter how tough you make immigration at Great Britain's ports of entry, anyone with an Eu passport can enter Ireland at will and walk, bus, train etc across our border there unchecked, and therefore *lost*.

When you cross the ferry from Northern Ireland to the mainland, all you are asked to do is match your iD with the name on the ticket. Nothing about your immigration status, indeed if the Irish let in someone from, say Yemen after Brexit on a valid EU/Schengen visa, there's no check of that visa at the UK/Ireland border (where they might not be allowed in) and when crossing to the mainlane there's no check of that visa - just does the name on the passport match the ticket.

I suppose there could be an agreement that all visas valid for the EU will also be valid for the UK to get over that problem - however so much for "control" when the EU are doing it for us. Not much point in leaving, then!!

 

[furnessvale]

The potential illegal immigrants are going to target the countries they can get in to, not the countries with the best economic prospects - illegal immigrants don't arrive in Greece because of its' economic prospects!

I doubt it. The Africans will see it as (slightly) better than the homelands that they are fleeing from, maybe a bit like Roumania (sparsely staffed health service, no environmental conscience, a few marauding ethnic cleansers - disguised as good old anglophiles etc., - just not so many droughts as back home!

Indeed, I was forgetting just how well the wonderful EU treats illegal immigrants, that they will move heaven and earth to pass right through the EU to get to this stinkhole called the UK.

 

[AM9]

Indeed, I was forgetting just how well the wonderful EU treats illegal immigrants, that they will move heaven and earth to pass right through the EU to get to this stinkhole called the UK.

Did you not notice the emoticon? Oh well, keep playing the anti-EU broken record.

 

[fowler9]

Indeed, I was forgetting just how well the wonderful EU treats illegal immigrants, that they will move heaven and earth to pass right through the EU to get to this stinkhole called the UK.

The UK is in the EU isn't it? Just checking. Perhaps if they are trying to get here rather than other EU countries it is because of stuff we are doing that has nothing to do with the EU? I must be wrong because everything we do in the UK is due to unelected EU bureaucrats hence why we are leaving?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Apparently good old' common Nigel is still relevant enough to warrant a headline

Nigel Farage has said Britain could be worse off after leaving the EU unless Theresa May gets tough with Brussels in the Brexit negotiations.

The former Ukip boss said Ms May was “the wrong leader” to take Britain out of the bloc, as the EU knows she would never walk away from the negotiations, despite her mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.

Mr Farage, who is regarded as one of the architects of Brexit, has been bullish in the past about Britain’s economic prospects after leaving the EU.

So, since he's making himself prominent again, has he at least offered someone better to take on the mantle of negotiator? Maybe someone more moderate in the Conservative Party? Maybe someone who was always in favour of leaving the EU and wishes to do it sensibly and as efficiently as possible? Maybe, just maybe, he's found courage and decided to try and do it himself for once?

It’s clear @BorisJohnson is right and that @realDonaldTrump would do a much better job of Brexit than @theresa_may.

God damn it...

 

[AlterEgo]

The UK is in the EU isn't it? Just checking. Perhaps if they are trying to get here rather than other EU countries it is because of stuff we are doing that has nothing to do with the EU? I must be wrong because everything we do in the UK is due to unelected EU bureaucrats hence why we are leaving?

The issue is that Britain was forced to accept a number of these migrants precisely because of the fact it is in the EU. The migrants who were coming were almost exclusively from a culture not at all like Britain’s. Some were asylum seekers but a large proportion were simply economic migrants. A very small proportion were people who were actively hostile to the UK.

The claim that people who were coming were refugees doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A refugee is principally seeking safety, which they obtained by leaving Syria and landing in the EU. Once they are within the safety of the EU, they can no longer be considered refugees in any real sense. Those who made 2,000 mike overland journeys through a multitude of safe countries to knock on Britain’s door aren’t refugees when they get to Calais. They’re migrants who want to settle in a country where they speak English and the population are known to be very tolerant.

The EU dealt very badly with the migrant crisis indeed. At the crux of the matter was the fact the EU overturned its previous principles on handling asylum seekers. Originally, an asylum seeker ceased to become so when they landed in the EU and they had to claim asylum in the first safe country. Typically this happened at Europe’s frontiers like Italy, Spain and Greece. What the EU did was transfer issues from its geographic fringes and try to redistribute the burden amongst all nations. Thus, our island, far away from where the problem was happening, had to start dealing with it.

Migration on the scale that was seen a few years ago was impossible for member nations to handle alone. Not least, immigration into the EU of people from places with values diametrically opposed to those nations is politically sensitive at a national level, and then there’s the problem of resources. Greece for example is an impoverished country and the migration placed it at breaking point. The EU essentially acted on its own, above the nation-state and attempted to dictate the position from a helicopter viewpoint.

 

[Dentonian]

Indeed, I was forgetting just how well the wonderful EU treats illegal immigrants, that they will move heaven and earth to pass right through the EU to get to this stinkhole called the UK.

When interviewed on TV, it seems "Refugees" cross Europe to get across the Channel because they specifically want to go to London. Problem being genuine Refugees are then dumped in northern towns and cities - I believe Rochdale has 100 hundred times as many Refugees per local as London. The situation is then exacerbated because they are prevented from working - and remember that many people are targetted by states such as Syria because they are well educated and desperate to work in such as the NHS. Thick locals think they choose to live off benefits and so its a win-win for Whitehall; Both the financial and social problems are dumped on local government.

 

[Dentonian]

The issue is that Britain was forced to accept a number of these migrants precisely because of the fact it is in the EU. The migrants who were coming were almost exclusively from a culture not at all like Britain’s. Some were asylum seekers but a large proportion were simply economic migrants. A very small proportion were people who were actively hostile to the UK.


Migration on the scale that was seen a few years ago was impossible for member nations to handle alone. Not least, immigration into the EU of people from places with values diametrically opposed to those nations is politically sensitive at a national level, and then there’s the problem of resources. Greece for example is an impoverished country and the migration placed it at breaking point. The EU essentially acted on its own, above the nation-state and attempted to dictate the position from a helicopter viewpoint.

I'm no expert on this aspect of the EU, but I do know that over the years we have been fed some c**p about being controlled by EU laws, and only this morning it was stated that France, Belgium and somewhere else had quite easily made their own laws about limiting Immigration. Also, from the immediate aftermath of Brexit, we know that a lot of campaigning and celebrating of Brexit was carried out by people of South Asian ethnicity. The argument being that these "pesky" Poles and Romanians were coming over here and taking jobs from Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians and Chinese.
Like a lot of aspects of this country, the "postcode lottery" aspect comes in to play though, as the number of East Europeans where I live is very, very few and always has been. And they ain't going to come now because they can't take the cut in wages!

 

[EM2]

The EU dealt very badly with the migrant crisis indeed. At the crux of the matter was the fact the EU overturned its previous principles on handling asylum seekers. Originally, an asylum seeker ceased to become so when they landed in the EU and they had to claim asylum in the first safe country. Typically this happened at Europe’s frontiers like Italy, Spain and Greece. What the EU did was transfer issues from its geographic fringes and try to redistribute the burden amongst all nations. Thus, our island, far away from where the problem was happening, had to start dealing with it.

The UK (along with Denmark) had an opt-out for the EU relocation scheme, and therefore was not allocated a quota of refugees.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5698_en.htm
Instead, David Cameron's Government introduced its own Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme. This was to accept 20,000 refugees between 2015 and 2020.
Asylum applications per 100,000 of population in 2015 were on average 260/100,000 per country across the EU. The UK figure was 60.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911

Edited to include links from European Commission and BBC

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm no expert on this aspect of the EU, but I do know that over the years we have been fed some c**p about being controlled by EU laws,

You might want to read about the migrant crisis again. It certainly is the case that the EU compelled member states to take their “fair share” of asylum seekers, and if they didn’t they had to pay swingeing levies of 250k Euro per declined entry.

and only this morning it was stated that France, Belgium and somewhere else had quite easily made their own laws about limiting Immigration.

Can you point me to a source? Britain has its own immigration law and targets but that’s not quite the point that was being made.

 

[AlterEgo]

Deleted

 

[fowler9]

The issue is that Britain was forced to accept a number of these migrants precisely because of the fact it is in the EU. The migrants who were coming were almost exclusively from a culture not at all like Britain’s. Some were asylum seekers but a large proportion were simply economic migrants. A very small proportion were people who were actively hostile to the UK.

The claim that people who were coming were refugees doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A refugee is principally seeking safety, which they obtained by leaving Syria and landing in the EU. Once they are within the safety of the EU, they can no longer be considered refugees in any real sense. Those who made 2,000 mike overland journeys through a multitude of safe countries to knock on Britain’s door aren’t refugees when they get to Calais. They’re migrants who want to settle in a country where they speak English and the population are known to be very tolerant.

The EU dealt very badly with the migrant crisis indeed. At the crux of the matter was the fact the EU overturned its previous principles on handling asylum seekers. Originally, an asylum seeker ceased to become so when they landed in the EU and they had to claim asylum in the first safe country. Typically this happened at Europe’s frontiers like Italy, Spain and Greece. What the EU did was transfer issues from its geographic fringes and try to redistribute the burden amongst all nations. Thus, our island, far away from where the problem was happening, had to start dealing with it.

Migration on the scale that was seen a few years ago was impossible for member nations to handle alone. Not least, immigration into the EU of people from places with values diametrically opposed to those nations is politically sensitive at a national level, and then there’s the problem of resources. Greece for example is an impoverished country and the migration placed it at breaking point. The EU essentially acted on its own, above the nation-state and attempted to dictate the position from a helicopter viewpoint.

Was the UK forced the same way Hungary and Poland were? People came here purely because of the way our government handled it.

 

[HSTEd]

Transitional controls would not have prevented the immigration, just would have delayed it for a few years.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course, sharing out refugees across the EU is pretty damn fair. Imagine you were an Italian, or a Greek, would you be happy having to accept all refugees just because your country happens to be on the southern edge of the EU? The problem was that instead of a co-ordinated and organised effort to allow this, countries basically just gave up and allowed people to pass through to wherever they wanted to go. If you had an actual proper organised system, many of the issues that happened could have been avoided.

Transitional controls would not have prevented the immigration, just would have delayed it for a few years.

But that isn't the only option available for limited freedom of movement from EU countries.
Specifically there is also the option to move on people who cannot support themselves. But because our government (I say that as an organisation rather than the current specific government) is useless, we don't do that. That isn't the EU's fault. It is our governments fault.

 

[HSTEd]

But that isn't the only option available for limited freedom of movement from EU countries.
Specifically there is also the option to move on people who cannot support themselves. But because our government (I say that as an organisation rather than the current specific government) is useless, we don't do that. That isn't the EU's fault. It is our governments fault.

Most legal opinions I have seen report that such tracking is impractical without registration - unless you suggest dragnetting EU citizens off the street and deporting those that cannot 'support themselves' - with all the litigation implied by that.

Registration of EU citizens would be forbidden by EU law as that would be discrimination, as no such registration system exists for UK citizens.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Most legal opinions I have seen report that such tracking is impractical without registration - unless you suggest dragnetting EU citizens off the street and deporting those that cannot 'support themselves' - with all the litigation implied by that.

Registration of EU citizens would be forbidden by EU law as that would be discrimination, as no such registration system exists for UK citizens.

You are absolutely allowed to register EU citizens - indeed the right for a country to do that is specifically mentioned in the "Freedom of movement" directive - Directive 2004/38/EC.
It was our governments decision not to keep track of the EU citizens who entered our country. This it is our governments fault that we cannot implement the restrictions that are allowed by EU law. Simple as.
If you want to read more - https://europa.eu/youreurope/citize...ormalities/registering-residence/index_en.htm.

Now if your point is that we don't have a registration process for UK citizens so we can't for EU citizens, that bit of the law is a more more obscure so I can't make a claim based on that with as much certainty as the rest of what I am saying. I am not sure if that is the case or not. I certainly can't see anything that say it is, but there are some mentions to not having to pay any more than what local citizens pay and any fines that may be levied cannot be any more than fines for local citizens. But even then if that is the case, any such policy is a UK government decision that is totally 100% in our control.

Also, freedom of movement is not carte blanche to do whatever you like. Despite popular misconceptions, it does not give you the right to just move to another EU country and bum around doing nothing, being supported by their welfare system for the rest of your time. So again, the fact we don't execute the ability to enforce such restrictions is purely the fault of UK governments. Incase you are wondering, freedom of movement only actually applies to someone if they are:

• working as an employee (this includes looking for work for a reasonable amount of time)
• working as a self-employed person
• studying
• self-sufficient or retired

Of course, the cynic in me thinks this was on purpose so they could always go back and blame the EU for anything that went wrong, which is exactly what has happened.
I wonder who people will blame once we are no longer in the EU for migration?

 

[HSTEd]

You are absolutely allowed to register EU citizens - indeed the right for a country to do that is specifically mentioned in the "Freedom of movement" directive - Directive 2004/38/EC.
It was our governments decision not to keep track of the EU citizens who entered our country.

How would you track them if they simply decide to walk across the border into Northern Ireland?

 

[WelshBluebird]

How would you track them if they simply decide to walk across the border into Northern Ireland?

That is a specific issue for the UK government to solve along with the NI assembly and the Irish government due to historical issues to do with the Good Friday agreement and the Ireland question. Nothing at all to do with the EU and EU laws.

Indeed it probably will have to be solved if Brexit ends up ending freedom of movement into and out of the UK. Unless we were happy to just deal with an open border (which was one of the things Brexiteers didn't want!). So maybe the Brexiteers could come up with a solution that makes Brexit less important!

 

[NSEFAN]

Registration of EU citizens would be forbidden by EU law as that would be discrimination, as no such registration system exists for UK citizens.

I wonder how many issues regarding immigration could have been avoided had we implemented an ID card system back under Blair and new Labour. We seem to want the contradictory setup of knowing who is supposed to be here, but not having to prove who we are.

 

[HSTEd]

That is a specific issue for the UK government to solve along with the NI assembly and the Irish government due to historical issues to do with the Good Friday agreement and the Ireland question. Nothing at all to do with the EU and EU laws.

In other words, it the Government's fault for not taking politically and diplomatically impossible actions to prevent the negative effects of EU member immigration?

 

[WelshBluebird]

In other words, it the Government's fault for not taking politically and diplomatically impossible actions to prevent the negative effects of EU member immigration?

EU law allows for such controls and many other EU countries have implemented them. Thus I cannot see how our governments failures to implement them is the EU's fault rather than our governments.

Now, by all means have a discussion about if the pros of EU membership and freedom of movement outweigh the cons, or if the cons outweigh the pros (of course that should have been the discussion before the referendum, but sadly it wasn't). By all means have a discussion about if certain UK specific policies (e.g. ID cards, or the NI border) have an impact on that too.

But to blame the EU, when it is internal UK politics that prevents the UK government from doing anything about it, is naive, factually incorrect and in many cases deliberately misleading.

 

[HSTEd]

EU law allows for such controls and many other EU countries have implemented them. Thus I cannot see how our governments failures to implement them are the EU's fault rather than our governments.

Such controls would require operations and activities which are an anathema to the current social contract in the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland.

Do you really think a Government would not have bothered with this? That Cameron would not have announced such a scheme before the referendum, especially when they realised it was going to be close, if it was actually possible to achieve what you say?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Such controls would require operations and activities which are an anathema to the current social contract in the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland.

Do you really think a Government would not have bothered with this? That Cameron would not have announced such a scheme before the referendum, especially when they realised it was going to be close, if it was actually possible to achieve what you say?

As I said, by all means have the discussion about if such controls are possible with the "current social contract" in this country.
By all means, after said discussion and research decide that it isn't worth it, or isn't possible because of internal UK issues.
But to then blame that on the EU is pretty damn misleading (at best).

All of the press and reporting around freedom of movement basically whinges about it, and fails totally to mention the fact the EU law does allow for controls on it.
So much so that most people I have talked to about the issue had no idea EU law allowed for that at all.

So why can't we have a genuine, honest discussion, where neither side tries to manipulate or mislead people?
Lets present people with the actual real facts about what we can and can't do in the EU, rather than just spreading FUD.

 

[HSTEd]

As I said, by all means have the discussion about if such controls are possible with the "current social contract" in this country.
By all means, after said discussion and research decide that it isn't worth it, or isn't possible because of internal UK issues.
But to then blame that on the EU is pretty damn misleading (at best).

The EU is the one that decrees that essentially the same ID requirements that apply to British citizens must apply to all EU nationals, thus making registration practically impossible.

All of the press and reporting around freedom of movement basically whinges about it, and fails totally to mention the fact the EU law does allow for controls on it.
So much so that most people I have talked to about the issue had no idea EU law allowed for that at all.

Only if the UK abandons one of its most popular freedoms and adopts the authoritarian concept of compulsory identification papers.

The EU is the one forcing the issue by insisting on functionally untrammelled freedom of movement and only permitting controls that are an anathema to the British people.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The EU is the one that decrees that essentially the same ID requirements that apply to British citizens must apply to all EU nationals, thus making registration practically impossible.

Only if the UK abandons one of its most popular freedoms and adopts the authoritarian concept of compulsory identification papers.

The EU is the one forcing the issue by insisting on functionally untrammelled freedom of movement and only permitting controls that are an anathema to the British people.

So as I said, lets actually have a discussion about this.
Why haven't any of the media actually said this is the case?
Hell why didn't either of the campaigns point out this is the case?
Most people are totally unaware there is even the option of controls over freedom of movement.
Has anyone ever asked the UK public if they would be willing to introduce ID cards if it meant being able to be tougher on immigrants who take the mick? (the last bit of research I saw a few months ago suggested the majority would actually support ID cards anyway - with slightly higher support still if you specify their use to be to prevent crime or terrorism).

As for the specifics about ID - as I said earlier I haven't read enough into it to know exactly the requirements of the law, but as some EU countries require just a free registration (that you get a certificate for, that you do not need to carry around with you like ID) - I really don't think it is as harsh as you make it sound.