[Politics] Brexit

[The Fifth Column]

What rot. Of course we wouldn't have to deal with them, we can just send them back. It's up to France what to do with migrants it their country.

I can't see the Ferry companies or Eurotunnel simply allowing thousands of non passport holding migrants just to jump on board and head over to the UK.

 

[Triggaaar]

Polling has shown the vast majority want immigration rates reduced.

And that would be true in most other EU countries too. Want the rate of immigration reduced is not the same as saying we want it reduced so much we're willing to give up free trade.

If Free movement continues virtually unchanged these people will know 4 million votes for UKIP gets you one MP, 17 million votes still doesn't get you what you want ... why bother with democracy at all.

I disagree, as 17 million didn't vote to reduce immigration, they voted to leave the current version of the EU. Of course I accept that immigration was the key factor for millions of people, but not half the people.

 

[Triggaaar]

Can we just send them back to France?

I didn't think we could?

If we can't that's like saying people from Mexico can walk into the USA and the USA aren't allowed to send them back. We have borders, we don't have to let people in.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Well, the remainers screamed at us over and over again that the Leave campaign was all lies. Looks like they were right about that (although not in the way they meant).

As a remain voter can I just congratulate you on your victory and apologies for not doing this earlier - Well done you, well done.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It doesn't have to be hate crime. There are ways of excluding people in subtle ways. Kids learn it in the playground.

Agreed, the answer is we all play our part in including people. I also have friends from abroad and they report no such discrimination so hopefully your friend and others like her were unlucky. The important thing is we support people in your friend's position as always.

 

[wehatepalace]

For France to withdraw the Tourquet agreement, surely Belgian would have to as well ? It's a 3 way treaty.
From what I read it was the Mayor of Calais mouthing off, and the French interior minister quickly moved to dismiss any withdrawal claims.
If the worst came to the worst and it was withdrawn, it would simply be a case of moving the onus on to the operators in the same way as airlines are fined £2k for every passenger without the correct documentation.
Also hopefully we'll make less inviting for illegal immigrants arriving in the uk

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

If we can't that's like saying people from Mexico can walk into the USA and the USA aren't allowed to send them back. We have borders, we don't have to let people in.

But send them back where?

France could just turn around and say no thank you.

 

[dingodan]

To those people who are pointing out incidents of racism & prejudice, you should realize that, had the UK maintained control of immigration, these things would be happening far less. It is only when the system becomes overwhelmed and resources become strained that people start looking at immigrants in an unpleasant way. I want to emphasise that this is a small minority, for most people the immigration situation is nothing at all to do with race. But where you do find prejudice, it is only inflamed by an irresponsible immigration policy. Our immigration policy of uncontrolled immigration hurts immigrants who are here, for some people they become something of a scapegoat, especially if economic times are difficult. Pre-2002 there really was pretty decent integration and good community relations.

The best thing for immigrants and community relations would have been to have maintained numbers which were managable.

Blair had a plan to make the UK more multicultural, it was a political and ideological plan to force a change in our country without consulting the public.

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

- Andrew Neather, former advisor to Tony Blair

His intention was no doubt to have us embrace immigration and cultural diversity, but these kind of ideological schemes, without public consent, have consequences. I'm sure Blair didn't intend that 15 years later, in part as a result of what he did, the UK would vote to leave the EU and end freedom of movement, but that is what has now happened.

IMO, if you want to blame someone for the divisiveness of the immigration issue, difficulties in community relations, and even maybe the fact that we voted to leave the EU, blame Tony Blair and his government. This would likely not have happened without this well intentioned but misguided and irresponsible policy.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The £ against the Euro was nearly parity 3 years ago , today it is 20 cents higher than then but it doesn't fit the narrative people want

It was only near parity if you changed your money at the ripoff Eurostar terminal at St Pancras

 

[studio150]

I quoted it because its a fact and yes we get a significant proportion of it back but are not free to choose how that money is spent or where it goes the EU decides on that. Out of the EU we will be free to decide ourselves where best to spend that money including the extra £8.5billion that would have gone into the pockets of our european neighbours. So until we actually leave the EU they are legally obliged to continue to pay the UK whatever grants and subsidies are already in place all the while we are still contributing as we are also legally obliged to do so. Once we leave we can then decide on which of those previously funded EU grants and subsidies we will continue to fund with the £19billion (or whatever the figure is at that point). I don't see any of that as a disaster.

So the £5bn rebate has strings attached and we must only spend it on what the EU says.
On this basis a fact in your world would include the fact that the cat did jump over the moon.

 

[GT49er]

As a remain voter can I just congratulate you on your victory and apologies for not doing this earlier - Well done you, well done.

You're not a smug git then?

 

[dingodan]

I posted in the free movement thread, but it's just as relevant here:

To those people who are pointing out incidents of racism & prejudice, you should realize that, had the UK maintained control of immigration, these things would be happening far less. It is only when the system becomes overwhelmed and resources become strained that people start looking at immigrants in an unpleasant way. I want to emphasise that this is a small minority, for most people the immigration situation is nothing at all to do with race. But where you do find prejudice, it is only inflamed by an irresponsible immigration policy. Our immigration policy of uncontrolled immigration hurts immigrants who are here, for some people they become something of a scapegoat, especially if economic times are difficult. Pre-2002 there really was pretty decent integration and good community relations.

The best thing for immigrants and community relations would have been to have maintained numbers which were managable.

Blair had a plan to make the UK more multicultural, it was a political and ideological plan to force a change in our country without consulting the public.

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

- Andrew Neather, former advisor to Tony Blair

His intention was no doubt to have us embrace immigration and cultural diversity, but these kind of ideological schemes, without public consent, have consequences. I'm sure Blair didn't intend that 15 years later, in part as a result of what he did, the UK would vote to leave the EU and end freedom of movement, but that is what has now happened.

IMO, if you want to blame someone for the divisiveness of the immigration issue, difficulties in community relations, and even maybe the fact that we voted to leave the EU, blame Tony Blair and his government. This would likely not have happened without this well intentioned but misguided and irresponsible policy.

 

[Triggaaar]

I have a friend in Shoreham, who is French, married a British man, who has lived here for a number of years. She says she now feels unwelcome here.

Yes this is an awful and very sad reality at the moment. The racists have been given the impression that their ****ed up views are actually acceptable (they're not, we didn't vote to get rid of foreigners, we voted against the EU, nothing more), so they feel free to be openly racist.

I will make a conscious effort to seek out foreigners I know and make sure they know those racists are not representative.

My prediction is when we sit down and discuss this with the EU they will offer us a minor upgrade on the deal DC came back with earlier this year or a punishing alternative.

That doesn't work - we won't believe the 'punishing alternative'. We just voted on staying in the EU or a 'punishing alternative' and we didn't believe it. We'll only find out the true alternative when it's the only thing left, and the EU have to deal with us.

 

[brightn'ove]

Pound now down to 1.32 against the dollar, predicted to fall further.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

And that would be true in most other EU countries too. Want the rate of immigration reduced is not the same as saying we want it reduced so much we're willing to give up free trade.

I disagree, as 17 million didn't vote to reduce immigration, they voted to leave the current version of the EU. Of course I accept that immigration was the key factor for millions of people, but not half the people.

So here's the situation as I see it

1. The French will soon be waving the residents of the Calais 'jungle' straight onto the ferries (can't say as I'd blame them)
2. The border between Southern and Northern Ireland will be open
3. With a 2 year (or more) continued window for free movement within EU (of which we'll still be a member), there will surely be an increase in intra-EU migration as they get in before the drawbridge is slammed shut.
4. Any longer term deal between UK and EU will almost certainly allow for some degree of movement - or we'll lose any hope of accessing the single market.

So the strategic geniuses who sit behind Brexit will have achieved

a) short term economic (and political) melt-down
b) increased immigration (at least in the short term)
c) alienation of most of our previous EU partners
d) total confusion or at least uncertainty for business
e) reducing the UK to a laughing stock (I guess that's what they meant by putting the great back in Britain?)
f) fear and anxiety of EU migrants currently living in and contributing to the UK
g) ditto for Brits retired to the EU
h) loss of jobs
i) increased inflation (import prices) and
j) to cap it all the depreciation of our currency so that we can't even escape to sunny climes to forget about it all

Which business would turn it's back - knowingly, willingly and with enthusiasm - on 50% of its market?

Can anyone explain quite what we have gained (without resorting to meaningless slogans such as 'we got our country back') and if so will it be worth it?

 

[Triggaaar]

Both the Tories and Labour are currently in meltdown. Hardly anyone expected leave to win, and there was (is) no semblance of a plan to deal with the aftermath.

Both parties lost the election. They have plans for how to rule when they win elections, when they lose elections they normally look for a new leader and have four years to come up with a new plan.

A complete and utter clusterf*ck.

Not really a surprise to be honest. We're asking MPs and a party to do something that they never stood for. I think it needs cool calm heads to work out what the options are.

 

[W.C.]

We are going to get turned over. What we asked for and what we get back will be something completely different. This has happened so many times before with the EU, Ireland, Greece as examples, all because the EU is undemocratic, beaucratic and can never be reformed. Democracy is dead.

Sorry, are you blaming the EU for British politicians, as it seems right now, not giving you what you feel you voted for?

 

[ManOfSussex]

So the strategic geniuses who sit behind Brexit will have achieved

a) short term economic (and political) melt-down
b) increased immigration (at least in the short term)
c) alienation of most of our previous EU partners
d) total confusion or at least uncertainty for business
e) reducing the UK to a laughing stock (I guess that's what they meant by putting the great back in Britain?)
f) fear and anxiety of EU migrants currently living in and contributing to the UK
g) ditto for Brits retired to the EU
h) loss of jobs
i) increased inflation (import prices) and
j) to cap it all the depreciation of our currency so that we can't even escape to sunny climes to forget about it all

k) 59% of Scots supporting independence.

I think we've achieved the greatest existential uncertainty to this country's future since WW2.

 

[The Fifth Column]

If we can't that's like saying people from Mexico can walk into the USA and the USA aren't allowed to send them back. We have borders, we don't have to let people in.

France and the rest of mainland Europe have been absolving themselves of responsibility of the migrant problem ever since they signed up to the Schengen agreement and threw open their borders to all and sundry. In all fairness even if Europe had retained border controls it would not have stopped the hundreds of thousands of migrants moving around Europe since the sheer scale of effectively controlling thousands of miles of border is virtually impossible when faced with the numbers coming from Africa and the Middle East. In the UK however we are fortunate to have that little strip of water separating us from mainland Europe which makes it far easier to control our border. If France decides to yet again absolve itself of responsibility and try and shift all the migrants to the UK it could be countered to try and stop that. The channel crossing companies could easily be placed under tighter controls with a whole host of options ranging from refusing to let a ferry or train to even leave France or enter the UK if it was found with illegal immigrants on board to the levying of fines on those companies for every one found on board.

I do sympathise with the people of Calais for having to endure the problems they are experiencing but they can't just shift the problem over the channel to us as punishment for leaving the EU. They may try but it won't succeed.

 

[Triggaaar]

Well, perhaps planning is not the right word but she is exploring all options: another independence referendum

That's been her position since before she became leader - that's always her party's position, same old shit.

negotiating directly with the EU whilst remaining in the UK

That's just silly. I can't see how the EU will allow a slice of the UK to be in the EU.

vetoing the bill in Westminster where the law is not abundantly clear as to whether the Scottish Assembly have to agree to leaving the EU or not.

Hardly a plan, just a tough question she was thrown in an interview.

She is clear that she has a mandate from the Scottish people to stay in the EU

Just as London MPs have a mandate from Londoners to stay in the EU.

My point really was that she is the only one appearing to do something - the leadership in Westminster do not appear to be doing anything at all at the moment.

Because her waters haven't been muddied - she wants out of the UK and in the EU - that hasn't changed. The problem in Westminster is that the majority of MPs want to be in the EU, but the people have just said they want out. That's a real mess. Normally an MP says what they want, and if they get in power, you've given them a mandate to do what they said. The opposite has just happened - they're in power but we've told them we want them to do something they're totally against. Sturgeon is simply in a much easier position on pushing for what she wants.