EU, Brexit and Immigration

[Lanark]

Another example is the dumping of economic migrants on the UK from France.

The numbers for unauthorised migrants do look bad for the UK, but then when you look at the authorised migration and then consider the difference is decided just by who the govt decide to 'authorise' and it all looks a little different.


But of course we have had decades of the gutter press blaming Europe for 'not taking in enough immigrants compared to the UK', and so we get Brexit.

[odysseus2000]

Such interesting replies.

Anyone quoting official numbers of refugees is missing the point, there are a large number of illegals in the UK who are not in the official figures. This leads to overload for services, schools and such so that the folk who have been living here for a long time and paying taxes suffer while these new comers who have not contributed get free healthcare. People who have paid and now suffer can not be expected to be happy about this.

If, as everyone suggests, most of the folk seeking refuge are genuine refugees why are many choosing to pay large sums to gangsters who are getting them ashore here illegally, some are detained, others disappear. Why would such folk move through Europe and come here? Additionally, if many of these are refugees why is the demographic of the illegals young: Where are the older people? Why would someone travel across Europe pay gangsters a serious amount of money and then risk their lives on a channel crossing?

If I wanted to infiltrate the UK and attempt a coup I would get as many military trained men here as possible and smuggle in arms. A few thousand people with modern weapons, especially if backed by a rogue state could cripple the UK political system and we have clear enemies in ISIS and now Russia. Letting all these young folk in is asking for trouble.

The whole idea that Brexit is the fault of the UK and that the EU has behaved honourably in all of this is a regular fallacy that is trotted out all the time. The UK made a democratic decision to leave, the EU then plotted with Prime Minister May to create a system that was EU membership in everything but name and the current PM went along with it leading to the mess that we now have. There are two ways forwards: Re-join or decisively break the UK away from the EU. A regular comment to this is that a break would destroy the UK economy whereas the far bigger break of the retreat from Dunkirk didn't. In 1945 the UK was in a far poorer position than it would be in after a break with the EU and yet in 15 years we had the swinging sixties.

Anyhow it is a fascinating situation that looks like it will drag on through this parliament and then at the next election potentially put in politicians with a claimed mandate to re-join making for at best another parliament of stagnation and a re-opening of the 2016 wounds that are still far from healed. There is clearly a sizeable group within the UK who are intent of sabotaging Brexit with the idea of re-joining Europe in the by and by. Whether Europe would accept a re-join is unclear but it hardly matters as the rate of growth of the US, China and India are leaving Europe behind and "big-money" clearly sees that marking down both the Euro and the £ against the $. While Europe fights its internal fault lines the whole continent slips into a steep secular decline. Brexit could have taken the UK out of this, but for now the UK is being dragged down by the myopia of the European project.

Regards,

[PeterGray]

If, as everyone suggests, most of the folk seeking refuge are genuine refugees why are many choosing to pay large sums to gangsters who are getting them ashore here illegally

Keep up, O. If there are no legal routes available, then how else can refugees get here?

The whole idea that Brexit is the fault of the UK and that the EU has behaved honourably in all of this is a regular fallacy that is trotted out all the time. The UK made a democratic decision to leave, the EU then plotted with Prime Minister May to create a system that was EU membership in everything but name

More garbage. May negotiated with the EU to try to find a solution to the issues in Ireland that Brexit caused, and no Brexiteers had bothered to concern themselves with beforehand (or much since). They had a solution, which would have been a pretty hard Brexit on any rational scale, but which allowed free movement of goods until such time in the future if the UK chose to diverge significantly for EU standards. Since Brexiteers were still claiming that they didn't want to lower food standards etc it should have been possible.

The plotting came not from the EU and May, but Johnson who wanted to be PM regardless of any costs to anyone else, and tore it up to appleal to the hardliners in the Tory party.

Your idea of "honourable" EU behaviour, shared with most hardline Brexiteers, seems to be that they should allow the UK to continue to trade with the EU as though we were still members, while accepting none of the obligations, or being prepared to commit to keeping to strandards which remain consistent with those of the EU. Which of course is nonsense and was clear from the start could never be possible. The UK was clear it wanted to be a third party to the EU, but those who pushed for it whinge when we are treated as such. Frankly it's delusional and increasingly pathetic.

[ursaminortaur]

A regular comment to this is that a break would destroy the UK economy whereas the far bigger break of the retreat from Dunkirk didn't. In 1945 the UK was in a far poorer position than it would be in after a break with the EU and yet in 15 years we had the swinging sixties.

You do realise that after the war the UK had to send John Maynard Keynes to America to beg for aid. They refused pure aid but agreed to a loan (the Anglo-American loan) which we only finished paying off in 2006. Even that wasn't enough and the UK was quickly back in dire straits (with one particular condition of the loan - convertibility of Sterling causing particular problems). What then saved us was the Marshall plan in 1948 with Britain receiving the largest share of that aid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

John Maynard Keynes, then in poor health and shortly before his death, was sent by the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada to obtain more funds.[4] British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1941, America would offer favorable terms. Instead of a grant or a gift, however, Keynes was offered a loan on favorable terms.

Historian Alan Sked has commented that, "the U.S. didn't seem to realize that Britain was bankrupt", and that the loan was "denounced in the House of Lords, but in the end the country had no choice."
.
.
.
The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling.[9] Though not the intention, the effect of convertibility was to worsen British post-war economic problems. International sterling balances became convertible one year after the loan was ratified, on 15 July 1947. Within a month, nations with sterling balances (e.g. pounds which they had earned from buying British exports, and which they were now permitted to sell to Britain in exchange for dollars) had drawn almost a billion dollars from British dollar reserves, forcing the British government to suspend convertibility and to begin immediate drastic cuts in domestic and overseas expenditure. The rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid.
.
.
.
According to Whitehall documentation of the time, Britain's 'overriding need' in regard to the Marshall Aid was to keep up the Bank of England's reserves of gold and dollars, so that Britain could go on acting as banker to the Sterling Area. But then again, it was also stated in the documentation that the 'primary purpose' must be to keep up imports, especially of food and tobacco, to say nothing of timber for the Labour Government's ambitious programme of council-house building. As for capital investment in industrial modernisation, that was relegated in the British tender to the mere category of 'clearly of great importance'.

The plain truth is that the Labour Government in the late 1940s sought to use Marshall Aid much as the Conservatives used the rake-off from North Sea oil in the 1980s - as a general subsidy for whatever they wished to do, like clinging on to the dream of a world power role.

I can't see the Americans stepping in to help out this time especially if the UK's decisions have harmed the Good Friday agreement.

[Lootman]

Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

That sounds more like protectionism than capitalism
- just going by the definitions and such

The biggest protectionist zone on the planet is the EU.

[ursaminortaur]

Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

That sounds more like protectionism than capitalism
- just going by the definitions and such

The biggest protectionist zone on the planet is the EU.

As I've said before by definition the EU Single Market is protectionist since it provides better trading conditions for those in the Single Market compared to those outside. However that is true for all FTAs which by definition provide better trading conditions to those party to the FTA than those who do not have such an FTA. Having an FTA reduces protectionist trade barriers for those party to those FTAs and since the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade bloc that fact makes it one of the least protectionist areas.

[AWOL]

I listened to Boris on the news today and if I get this right we are going to break international law and a treaty that he recently negotiated. On the other hand he wants to negotiate new treaties with other trading partners because British values of honesty and fairness make us a reliable partner. Why would anyone trust him this time?

From previous statements USA will be one of those (within a year i believe he promised at the time). I guess America will be really encouraged by the fair dealing they have seen over the handing of Northern Ireland and the EU. Things must be gong well as we have an MOU with Indiana which the government have been trumpeting as a trade deal.

It looks like our post imperial decline is still ongoing.

I heard a Labour front bencher failing to get the point that our economic mess is not all global factors like the government is saying. It should be obvious that domestic policy is to blame as the only G20 country doing worse than us is Russia. So if Labour cannot get it who is going to save us? We need a party with an economic strategy. The Tories just lie, I mean boost, and claim its all a global problem.

I see the GBP continuing to be week but currency forecasts and notoriously risky. UK plc is much sicker than this government realises and i want it to prosper for future generations. At this rate there won't even be a UK.

[CliffEdge]

I listened to Boris on the news today and if I get this right we are going to break international law and a treaty that he recently negotiated. On the other hand he wants to negotiate new treaties with other trading partners because British values of honesty and fairness make us a reliable partner. Why would anyone trust him this time?

From previous statements USA will be one of those (within a year i believe he promised at the time). I guess America will be really encouraged by the fair dealing they have seen over the handing of Northern Ireland and the EU. Things must be gong well as we have an MOU with Indiana which the government have been trumpeting as a trade deal.

It looks like our post imperial decline is still ongoing.

I heard a Labour front bencher failing to get the point that our economic mess is not all global factors like the government is saying. It should be obvious that domestic policy is to blame as the only G20 country doing worse than us is Russia. So if Labour cannot get it who is going to save us? We need a party with an economic strategy. The Tories just lie, I mean boost, and claim its all a global problem.

I see the GBP continuing to be week but currency forecasts and notoriously risky. UK plc is much sicker than this government realises and i want it to prosper for future generations. At this rate there won't even be a UK.

And still the Brexiteers don't get it!

[TUK020]

Such interesting replies.

Anyone quoting official numbers of refugees is missing the point, there are a large number of illegals in the UK who are not in the official figures. This leads to overload for services, schools and such so that the folk who have been living here for a long time and paying taxes suffer while these new comers who have not contributed get free healthcare. People who have paid and now suffer can not be expected to be happy about this.

If, as everyone suggests, most of the folk seeking refuge are genuine refugees why are many choosing to pay large sums to gangsters who are getting them ashore here illegally, some are detained, others disappear. Why would such folk move through Europe and come here? Additionally, if many of these are refugees why is the demographic of the illegals young: Where are the older people? Why would someone travel across Europe pay gangsters a serious amount of money and then risk their lives on a channel crossing?

If I wanted to infiltrate the UK and attempt a coup I would get as many military trained men here as possible and smuggle in arms. A few thousand people with modern weapons, especially if backed by a rogue state could cripple the UK political system and we have clear enemies in ISIS and now Russia. Letting all these young folk in is asking for trouble.

The whole idea that Brexit is the fault of the UK and that the EU has behaved honourably in all of this is a regular fallacy that is trotted out all the time. The UK made a democratic decision to leave, the EU then plotted with Prime Minister May to create a system that was EU membership in everything but name and the current PM went along with it leading to the mess that we now have. There are two ways forwards: Re-join or decisively break the UK away from the EU. A regular comment to this is that a break would destroy the UK economy whereas the far bigger break of the retreat from Dunkirk didn't. In 1945 the UK was in a far poorer position than it would be in after a break with the EU and yet in 15 years we had the swinging sixties.

Anyhow it is a fascinating situation that looks like it will drag on through this parliament and then at the next election potentially put in politicians with a claimed mandate to re-join making for at best another parliament of stagnation and a re-opening of the 2016 wounds that are still far from healed. There is clearly a sizeable group within the UK who are intent of sabotaging Brexit with the idea of re-joining Europe in the by and by. Whether Europe would accept a re-join is unclear but it hardly matters as the rate of growth of the US, China and India are leaving Europe behind and "big-money" clearly sees that marking down both the Euro and the £ against the $. While Europe fights its internal fault lines the whole continent slips into a steep secular decline. Brexit could have taken the UK out of this, but for now the UK is being dragged down by the myopia of the European project.

Regards,

I have a super bad feeling about the logic employed in this analysis

[servodude]

Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

That sounds more like protectionism than capitalism
- just going by the definitions and such

The biggest protectionist zone on the planet is the EU.

As I've said before by definition the EU Single Market is protectionist since it provides better trading conditions for those in the Single Market compared to those outside. However that is true for all FTAs which by definition provide better trading conditions to those party to the FTA than those who do not have such an FTA. Having an FTA reduces protectionist trade barriers for those party to those FTAs and since the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade bloc that fact makes it one of the least protectionist areas.

Indeed - it's just a playing field; there are plenty of them and they've all got their idiosyncrasies.
The EU just happens to be the biggest and it's been levelled quite well.
Fair enough though the surface might take a bit of looking after and if one finds the subs for that onerous they're free to go and play keepie-up by themselves on the red blaes

The folk playing on it though might be playing a capitalist version of the game or not

-sd

[odysseus2000]

More interesting replies that warp history to suit a retainer view point.

In the 1970's a referendum was held about the UK joining a common market. There was no open discussion about political union although papers released under the 30 year rule show that this was the intention and over the years political union came with no opportunity until the Brexit referendum for a UK democratic vote. It is hard not to see this as a underhand business by both the UK parliament and the the EU commission.

After the Brexit vote Mrs. May was in tears at the result and then she plotted to make Brexit a move in name only creating with Frost an international treaty that bound the UK to EU law and this was presented by candidate Johnson as an oven ready deal when it was instead a poison pie. Fast forward to now and we have had a few years of the "marriage" and we don't like it, nor do the EU who were happy to attempt to break the treaty when they feared they could not get a covid vaccines. As in all marriages that don't work we are now heading into a divorce, nothing more than that. All this rot about breaking international treaties wasn't dragged up when the EU proposed it over covid vaccines but now its being shouted from the roof tops.

The whole idea that there will be no Marshall plan this time is regularly trumpeted out, ignoring that the UK is not the broken, ration inflicted, hungary and broke entity that it was in 1945, then feeding parts of Europe as well as ourselves.

Peter Gray's comment
Keep up, O. If there are no legal routes available, then how else can refugees get here?


gave me the biggest laugh. If I don't have enough money does this allow me to take it from a bank?

If folk are genuine refugees they can apply for residence and save themselves the cost of supporting the gangsters. What we have now is a European/UK criminal organisation of which Thomas Shelby would be proud and we as UK tax payers are putting large amounts of money into the gangsters pockets by allowing their trade. If each illegal pays £5000 and there are 100,000, that is £500 million into the gangsters pocket and all the corrupt officials who are supporting this illegal operation.

The fundamental issues with the EU is that it is not democratic, the nations still in the EU are abandoning a process that has been developed over centuries for a central control despite the former having worked and the latter not having worked. A political system that relies on unelected folk who are unknown to most of the population to run things has never worked, always it collapses into totalitarian governance and we see all the signs of that developing in the EU, very clearly with the vaccine issue. The failure of the EU system is also clearly shown in the weakness of the Euro against the $ and that is a reflection of the secular decline in European industry with essentially no EU industries in the internet economy and with every passing year the US, China and India grow more strongly and take more and more money out of the EU.

Of course I appreciate that nothing of what I type will be accepted. What ever the government and media put out acquires a power of 'correctness' as we saw with Covid vaccines and the insistence that although South Africa had said the new Covid was weak, this must be wrong as Prof. Whitty said it was dangerous and we must have more vaccines. The fact that billions of £ were made by the vaccine makers and they didn't want their income to stop was never considered. It was all about following what someone in "authority" said. There is of course power in "authority" when it has guided folks lives for decades, but there always comes a point when the music stops and folk finally come to see what has been obvious for years but which they have thought wasn't so.

Regards,

[ursaminortaur]

More interesting replies that warp history to suit a retainer view point.

In the 1970's a referendum was held about the UK joining a common market. There was no open discussion about political union although papers released under the 30 year rule show that this was the intention and over the years political union came with no opportunity until the Brexit referendum for a UK democratic vote. It is hard not to see this as a underhand business by both the UK parliament and the the EU commission.

The 1975 referendum was full of discussion about the political implications - in the newspapers, TV debates and in the anti-marketeers "NO" leaflet delivered to every household. It is irrelevant what some paper recommended - it was the centre piece of the anti-marketeers campaign as would be expected. Harold Wilson's cabinet and party were split on the issue which is why there was a referendum in the first place and that meant that both sides had full access to all the available information about the EEC, how it operated and what its future goals were.

See the Daily Mail leader on the eve of the referendum

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/we-were-never-hoodwinked/

The anti-Marketeers have a glum lack of faith in Britain's ability to hold her own inside the Market -- coupled with an unremitting suspicion of foreigners.
They speak as if the EEC's eventual goal of political union was a dark secret to be sprung on us when our back was turned. Haven't they being listening to the visionary words of European Leaders for the last twenty-five years ?
.
.
.


and the section headed "The Right to Rule ourselves" in the NO referendum leaflet

http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/1975ReferendumNO.pdf

What is worse, it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation. This will take away from us the right to rule ourselves which we have enjoyed for centuries.
.
.
.

[PeterGray]

If folk are genuine refugees they can apply for residence and save themselves the cost of supporting the gangsters

OK, since you are so on top of the subject, O, and find it all so amusing, tell us how a refugee can apply for residence in the UK?

[AWOL]

If folk are genuine refugees they can apply for residence and save themselves the cost of supporting the gangsters

OK, since you are so on top of the subject, O, and find it all so amusing, tell us how a refugee can apply for residence in the UK?

Oh I know this!!!!!!


Step 1... get a VISA
Step 2... get through passport control/immigration check
Step 3... get on plane

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-carriers

I skipped Step 0.... Evade pursuers (secret police, religious police, government stooges, Taliban, Islamic State, other religious ethnic groups, etc.).

It hasn't changed much since Jews fled the Nazis.

[servodude]

If folk are genuine refugees they can apply for residence and save themselves the cost of supporting the gangsters

OK, since you are so on top of the subject, O, and find it all so amusing, tell us how a refugee can apply for residence in the UK?

Oh I know this!!!!!!


Step 1... get a VISA
Step 2... get through passport control/immigration check
Step 3... get on plane

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-carriers

I skipped Step 0.... Evade pursuers (secret police, religious police, government stooges, Taliban, Islamic State, other religious ethnic groups, etc.).

It hasn't changed much since Jews fled the Nazis.

Could hitch a lift on a UFO

[AWOL]

I also missed the actual bit where you apply to live permanently here. https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigra ... -in-the-uk

[XFool]

Such interesting replies.

Anyone quoting official numbers of refugees is missing the point, there are a large number of illegals in the UK who are not in the official figures.

Are there? How many? Is there an estimate? How reliable is it? How do you know?

If, as everyone suggests, most of the folk seeking refuge are genuine refugees why are many choosing to pay large sums to gangsters who are getting them ashore here illegally, some are detained, others disappear. Why would such folk move through Europe and come here?

Because here is where they have decided to come, in the interests of their future? Likely because of some existing connection to the UK.

Additionally, if many of these are refugees why is the demographic of the illegals young: Where are the older people?

Could be several explanations: They are pathfinders for their family to get established in the UK; it is only the younger and fitter (and male) who are able to undertake such a hazardous journey; they have older relatives already living in the UK.

Why would someone travel across Europe pay gangsters a serious amount of money and then risk their lives on a channel crossing?

Why indeed? There must be serious motivation to do so. Perhaps they want a future for themselves and their family?

The whole idea that Brexit is the fault of the UK and that the EU has behaved honourably in all of this is a regular fallacy that is trotted out all the time.

Err... The whole idea of "Brexit" IS "the fault" of the UK! Remember? It was entirely a UK 'project', or at least the project of some political actors in the UK.

BTW. We can now see clearly that the UK - in the guise of this Brexit government - is not acting honourably in this matter.

The UK made a democratic decision to leave, the EU then plotted with Prime Minister May to create a system that was EU membership in everything but name and the current PM went along with it leading to the mess that we now have. There are two ways forwards: Re-join or decisively break the UK away from the EU. A regular comment to this is that a break would destroy the UK economy whereas the far bigger break of the retreat from Dunkirk didn't. In 1945 the UK was in a far poorer position than it would be in after a break with the EU and yet in 15 years we had the swinging sixties.

I really cannot make any sense of your Dunkirk 'analogy' on the economic front, however it seems to fit perfectly with some Brexiteers' apparent ideation of the EU being our enemy and we are still fighting the second world war against them!

Anyhow it is a fascinating situation that looks like it will drag on through this parliament and then at the next election potentially put in politicians with a claimed mandate to re-join making for at best another parliament of stagnation and a re-opening of the 2016 wounds that are still far from healed.

So Brexit is not yet "Done!" ? Um...

There is clearly a sizeable group within the UK who are intent of sabotaging Brexit with the idea of re-joining Europe in the by and by.

Or the chosen Brexitis is itself proving self-sabotaging?

Whether Europe would accept a re-join is unclear but it hardly matters as the rate of growth of the US, China and India are leaving Europe behind and "big-money" clearly sees that marking down both the Euro and the £ against the $. While Europe fights its internal fault lines the whole continent slips into a steep secular decline.

Not like here in the UK then?

Brexit could have taken the UK out of this, but for now the UK is being dragged down by the myopia of the European project.

The UK is certainly being dragged down by myopia...

[odysseus2000]

If folk are genuine refugees they can apply for residence and save themselves the cost of supporting the gangsters

OK, since you are so on top of the subject, O, and find it all so amusing, tell us how a refugee can apply for residence in the UK?

The procedure is clear:

Apply for refugee status in the first safe country.

The folk coming from France are already in a safe country, hence they can apply there.

Once established in France or where ever they can apply to come here using the normal procedures for immigration, the sort of stuff I had to do to work in the US.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

More interesting replies that warp history to suit a retainer view point.

In the 1970's a referendum was held about the UK joining a common market. There was no open discussion about political union although papers released under the 30 year rule show that this was the intention and over the years political union came with no opportunity until the Brexit referendum for a UK democratic vote. It is hard not to see this as a underhand business by both the UK parliament and the the EU commission.

The 1975 referendum was full of discussion about the political implications - in the newspapers, TV debates and in the anti-marketeers "NO" leaflet delivered to every household. It is irrelevant what some paper recommended - it was the centre piece of the anti-marketeers campaign as would be expected. Harold Wilson's cabinet and party were split on the issue which is why there was a referendum in the first place and that meant that both sides had full access to all the available information about the EEC, how it operated and what its future goals were.

See the Daily Mail leader on the eve of the referendum

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/we-were-never-hoodwinked/

The anti-Marketeers have a glum lack of faith in Britain's ability to hold her own inside the Market -- coupled with an unremitting suspicion of foreigners.
They speak as if the EEC's eventual goal of political union was a dark secret to be sprung on us when our back was turned. Haven't they being listening to the visionary words of European Leaders for the last twenty-five years ?
.
.
.


and the section headed "The Right to Rule ourselves" in the NO referendum leaflet

http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/1975ReferendumNO.pdf

What is worse, it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation. This will take away from us the right to rule ourselves which we have enjoyed for centuries.
.
.
.

This is a really good example of finding something that was not widely presented at the time and assuming that everyone was aware.

Go and talk to folk who voted in the 70's referendum and one will find near unity that they thought they were voting to join a common market and that if they had been told this was a political union they would have voted not to join.

The whole idea that the subsequent negotiations to join the EU were sanctioned by the 70's referendum is wrong.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

XFool
Because here is where they have decided to come, in the interests of their future? Likely because of some existing connection to the UK.

So which is it?

Is the UK an attractive place to live after Brexit or are all the illegals being hoodwinked to come to a country that is about to collapse as you seem to be arguing. If this is your thesis then surely we should be sending all the illegals back to save them from the collapsing UK.

Regards,