The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
It's clear to me that before the current border Le Touquet agreement were cancelled then we would see an increase in asylum claim's. Currently 30,000 per year, was 80,000 iirc.
Is it going to get rid off the Jungle in Calais? Probably not unless the French and the ferry operators abdicate their responsibility and just bus people on board willy nilly, in which case they should be fined and right so.
Would it result in UK jungle camps, well assuming border officials get their act together and process asylum claim's properly then no, because either people are granted asylum and then they're off into the community or they are bunged back from wherever they came.
The claim that benefit changes will reduce the pull is probably correct but it will take time to take some effect, plus is partly negated by the ability for people to survive off the radar in the black economy.
Anyway immigration is a minor side issue to the referendum, Brexit won't reduce immigration and a stop to immigration is actually a bad thing for the economy. In theory it might allow us more of a say, but not for many years yet as in order to make smooth fisxally neutral exit, thus giving the stability that the economy and business needs, then nothing much will need to change for years.
Is it going to get rid off the Jungle in Calais? Probably not unless the French and the ferry operators abdicate their responsibility and just bus people on board willy nilly, in which case they should be fined and right so.
Would it result in UK jungle camps, well assuming border officials get their act together and process asylum claim's properly then no, because either people are granted asylum and then they're off into the community or they are bunged back from wherever they came.
The claim that benefit changes will reduce the pull is probably correct but it will take time to take some effect, plus is partly negated by the ability for people to survive off the radar in the black economy.
Anyway immigration is a minor side issue to the referendum, Brexit won't reduce immigration and a stop to immigration is actually a bad thing for the economy. In theory it might allow us more of a say, but not for many years yet as in order to make smooth fisxally neutral exit, thus giving the stability that the economy and business needs, then nothing much will need to change for years.
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
Scuffers I some times wonder do you believe if you say something often enough it will become true.
So you are correct you can fine the ferry company and make them take the person back.
HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
So,.please explain why it would be any different to airports?So you are correct you can fine the ferry company and make them take the person back.
HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
Once we make.it clear.that the carrier becomes financially responsible for this, they simply will not bring them here in the first place.
All this crap about them dumping passports and Id paperwork would mean they simply cannot board a ferry/train/etc.
Yes I am some will arrive and claim asylum, and some may well be genuine, but nothing like the hordes in the jungle.
It's all about having the will to enforce our borders and laws.
Do you see the Russians having these problem?
You only have to look at Australia to see how to do it.
Who the heck would want to seek asylum in Russia, by the way?
Boris on Europe just now on Facebook:
Boris Johnson said:
Bzzzt went the bell. I looked up in amazement from my reading on bus routes or sustainable drainage or whatever. It was 7am. Who the heck was ringing my doorbell before breakfast?
“Helloooo,” said a seductive female voice. “It’s ITV – we want to know your views on Europe.” And so I told her what I have told everyone else in the last few days. “Donnez moi un break,” I said.
This is the last phase of a critical negotiation. We have some proposals from the Polish leader, Donald Tusk, but they are not yet even agreed among other EU leaders. The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already said that he wants to unscramble them.
This is the moment to stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, squint down the barrel and only when you see the whites of their eyes, finally decide whether to stay in or leave the EU; because the arguments are as finely balanced as they have ever been.
The choice is really quite simple. In favour of staying, it is in Britain’s geo-strategic interests to be pretty intimately engaged in the doings of a continent that has a grim 20th-century history, and whose agonies have caused millions of Britons to lose their lives. History shows that they need us. Leaving would be widely read as a very negative signal for Europe. It would dismay some of our closest friends, not least the eastern Europeans for whom the EU has been a force for good: stability, openness, and prosperity.
It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.
Against these points we must enter the woeful defects of the EU. It is manifestly undemocratic and in some ways getting worse. It is wasteful, expensive and occasionally corrupt. The Common Agricultural Policy is iniquitous towards developing countries. The EU is legislating over an ever wider range of policy areas, now including human rights, and with Britain ever more frequently outvoted. There is currently no effective means of checking this one-way ratchet of growth-strangling regulation, and to make matters worse the EU is now devoting most of its intellectual energy to trying to save the euro, a flawed project from which we are thankfully exempt. The EU’s share of global trade is diminishing, and the people who prophesy doom as a result of Brexit are very largely the same people who said we should join the euro.
So there is the dilemma in a nutshell: Britain in the EU good, in so far as that means helping to shape the destiny of a troubled continent in uncertain times, while trading freely with our partners. Britain in the EU bad, in so far as it is a political project whose destiny of ever-closer union we don’t accept and whose lust to regulate we can’t stop.
That is why for the last couple of years I have argued that we would be – on the whole – better off in a reformed EU, but that Britain could have a great future outside. In deciding how to vote I (and I expect a few others) will want to know whether we have genuinely achieved any reform, and whether there is the prospect of any more. So let’s look at the Tusk proposals, in turn, and ask some hard questions.
First: this “protection” for the UK and other countries that don’t use the euro: is it a concession by them, or by us? The salient point appears to be that the UK will not be able to block moves to create a fiscal union – a deeply anti-democratic exercise. Do we really think that they should be able to use EU institutions, which we share, to centralise tax and budgetary powers? Why? And what does it all mean for the City? What are these new “macro-prudential” powers over banks that Brussels seems to want?
Next: competitiveness. The language is excellent. Tusk talks about lowering administrative burdens, cutting compliance costs and repealing unnecessary legislation. Very good. But we have heard this kind of thing for a while. How many laws has the EU actually repealed, what are they, and why should we believe that this process will accelerate? Why are we not insisting on a timetable for a real single market in services?
On sovereignty, it looks as though the Prime Minister has done better than many expected, in that EU leaders have apparently agreed that the phrase “ever-closer union” should no longer serve as a signpost for integration. That is potentially very important, since the European Court has often made use of the phrase in advancing its more aggressively federalist judgments. But how bankable is this? Will it be engraved in the treaties? Will the court be obliged to take account of this change, or will it be blown away – like Tony Blair’s evanescent opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? How can we restore the force of that Lisbon opt-out, and stop the court making rulings on human rights? In asserting Parliament’s sovereignty, how can we construct something that will be truly intimidating both to the law-making activism of the commission and the judicial activism of the court? Are we talking bazooka or popgun?
Last, on borders, we seem to have accepted the mantra that “free movement” is an age-old inviolable principle of the EU. This is not quite so. Until recently it only applied to “workers” rather than all EU citizens. Why didn’t we try harder to recapture control of our borders, rather than stick at this minor (if worthwhile) change to the law on benefits? There may be a good explanation, but we need to hear it.
These are the questions I pose, humbly and respectfully. Let’s hope for some answers in the next fortnight.
“Helloooo,” said a seductive female voice. “It’s ITV – we want to know your views on Europe.” And so I told her what I have told everyone else in the last few days. “Donnez moi un break,” I said.
This is the last phase of a critical negotiation. We have some proposals from the Polish leader, Donald Tusk, but they are not yet even agreed among other EU leaders. The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already said that he wants to unscramble them.
This is the moment to stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, squint down the barrel and only when you see the whites of their eyes, finally decide whether to stay in or leave the EU; because the arguments are as finely balanced as they have ever been.
The choice is really quite simple. In favour of staying, it is in Britain’s geo-strategic interests to be pretty intimately engaged in the doings of a continent that has a grim 20th-century history, and whose agonies have caused millions of Britons to lose their lives. History shows that they need us. Leaving would be widely read as a very negative signal for Europe. It would dismay some of our closest friends, not least the eastern Europeans for whom the EU has been a force for good: stability, openness, and prosperity.
It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.
Against these points we must enter the woeful defects of the EU. It is manifestly undemocratic and in some ways getting worse. It is wasteful, expensive and occasionally corrupt. The Common Agricultural Policy is iniquitous towards developing countries. The EU is legislating over an ever wider range of policy areas, now including human rights, and with Britain ever more frequently outvoted. There is currently no effective means of checking this one-way ratchet of growth-strangling regulation, and to make matters worse the EU is now devoting most of its intellectual energy to trying to save the euro, a flawed project from which we are thankfully exempt. The EU’s share of global trade is diminishing, and the people who prophesy doom as a result of Brexit are very largely the same people who said we should join the euro.
So there is the dilemma in a nutshell: Britain in the EU good, in so far as that means helping to shape the destiny of a troubled continent in uncertain times, while trading freely with our partners. Britain in the EU bad, in so far as it is a political project whose destiny of ever-closer union we don’t accept and whose lust to regulate we can’t stop.
That is why for the last couple of years I have argued that we would be – on the whole – better off in a reformed EU, but that Britain could have a great future outside. In deciding how to vote I (and I expect a few others) will want to know whether we have genuinely achieved any reform, and whether there is the prospect of any more. So let’s look at the Tusk proposals, in turn, and ask some hard questions.
First: this “protection” for the UK and other countries that don’t use the euro: is it a concession by them, or by us? The salient point appears to be that the UK will not be able to block moves to create a fiscal union – a deeply anti-democratic exercise. Do we really think that they should be able to use EU institutions, which we share, to centralise tax and budgetary powers? Why? And what does it all mean for the City? What are these new “macro-prudential” powers over banks that Brussels seems to want?
Next: competitiveness. The language is excellent. Tusk talks about lowering administrative burdens, cutting compliance costs and repealing unnecessary legislation. Very good. But we have heard this kind of thing for a while. How many laws has the EU actually repealed, what are they, and why should we believe that this process will accelerate? Why are we not insisting on a timetable for a real single market in services?
On sovereignty, it looks as though the Prime Minister has done better than many expected, in that EU leaders have apparently agreed that the phrase “ever-closer union” should no longer serve as a signpost for integration. That is potentially very important, since the European Court has often made use of the phrase in advancing its more aggressively federalist judgments. But how bankable is this? Will it be engraved in the treaties? Will the court be obliged to take account of this change, or will it be blown away – like Tony Blair’s evanescent opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? How can we restore the force of that Lisbon opt-out, and stop the court making rulings on human rights? In asserting Parliament’s sovereignty, how can we construct something that will be truly intimidating both to the law-making activism of the commission and the judicial activism of the court? Are we talking bazooka or popgun?
Last, on borders, we seem to have accepted the mantra that “free movement” is an age-old inviolable principle of the EU. This is not quite so. Until recently it only applied to “workers” rather than all EU citizens. Why didn’t we try harder to recapture control of our borders, rather than stick at this minor (if worthwhile) change to the law on benefits? There may be a good explanation, but we need to hear it.
These are the questions I pose, humbly and respectfully. Let’s hope for some answers in the next fortnight.
zygalski said:
Let's not forget most of the posts in this thread come from cloud cuckoo types who all thought UKIP would at minimum hold the balance of power after the election...
Oh do cut it out, people trying to have a serious discussion and oiks like you come stamping in. Just get out.FiF said:
Anyway immigration is a minor side issue to the referendum, Brexit won't reduce immigration and a stop to immigration is actually a bad thing for the economy. In theory it might allow us more of a say, but not for many years yet as in order to make smooth fisxally neutral exit, thus giving the stability that the economy and business needs, then nothing much will need to change for years.
I would disagree. There are a number of politically aware people who will frame the debate in drier terms but for the man on the street one of the KEY issues surrounding the debate will be immigration.and yes Brexit would reduce immigration, as many of those currently able to gain admittance either as EU citizens or as partners of them would not meet the criteria of the skilled worker VISA scheme.
A complete stop to immigration would be a bad thing for the economy I would agree. Control over immigration would be even more beneficial to the economy as I would sooner have one individual at the top of their profession from the rest of the world than ten potato farmers from eastern Europe.
Prosperity rather than crude measures such as total GDP depend far more on the quality of immigration than its quantity.
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
So you are correct you can fine the ferry company and make them take the person back.
HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
You are quite correct that the person can claim refugee status and whether accepted or not will likely not be deported (throughout the EU only 40% of failed asylum seekers are deported)HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
The point is that even without UK border guards present in France if the Ferry company is receiving a fine for each one it brings across it would be good business practice to have its own checks.
Eurotunnel is already seeking Government subsidies for security costs. Add to that the addition cost for searching every lorry and that's a lot of money.
Also I believe customs officers in Calais have the same powers they do in the UK so its easy for them forcefully to remove an irregular immigrant from a lorry. This would not be the case for private security guards who might need to await assistance from French police.
PRTVR said:
Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
zygalski said:
EU referendum: PM warns Brexit could bring the 'Jungle' to the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Kind of makes sense, if we exit & then French tell our authorities to f
k off from Calais & other crossing points.
I should imagine we'd be able to fly them all straight back from whence they've came, what with all the savings from leaving the EU. Gotta find some way to spend the mountains of cash....
total bhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Kind of makes sense, if we exit & then French tell our authorities to f
k off from Calais & other crossing points.I should imagine we'd be able to fly them all straight back from whence they've came, what with all the savings from leaving the EU. Gotta find some way to spend the mountains of cash....
ks.assuming our own government does not fold, we simply do not allow them to come to the UK, and any operator that shipps one here has to remove them back to where they came from - ie. the same that's dome at airports etc.
So you are correct you can fine the ferry company and make them take the person back.
HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
So you are correct you can fine the ferry company and make them take the person back.
HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
You are quite correct that the person can claim refugee status and whether accepted or not will likely not be deported (throughout the EU only 40% of failed asylum seekers are deported)HOWEVER, if the person claims refugee status they are on UK sovereign territory so under our treaty obligations they can stay while there case is assessed.
The point is that even without UK border guards present in France if the Ferry company is receiving a fine for each one it brings across it would be good business practice to have its own checks.
Eurotunnel is already seeking Government subsidies for security costs. Add to that the addition cost for searching every lorry and that's a lot of money.
Also I believe customs officers in Calais have the same powers they do in the UK so its easy for them forcefully to remove an irregular immigrant from a lorry. This would not be the case for private security guards who might need to await assistance from French police.
Zod said:
emind me how the migrants get to Greece? Then let's think about the shape of our country. It's an island with a very long coastline. How would you propose we prevent boats from landing wherever they feel like it.
Who the heck would want to seek asylum in Russia, by the way?
we do the same Aus did, you pick them up, sink their boats, take them back to the country they embarked from.Who the heck would want to seek asylum in Russia, by the way?
it's really not that hard, just needs political will and determination.
back this up with a proper information campaign world wide that we simply will not allow people to illegally enter the UK, job done.
Yes, the liberal left will go mad along with amnesty etc etc. but once it's clear what the policy is and we do mean it, then it will get a lot easier, ie. if you want to claim asylum in the UK you need to apply at one of our embassies BEFORE you rock up here.
Mrr T said:
I agree with much of this but a couple of points.
While I do not say the Customs and Border agency is very efficient I also know how hard it is assess refugee applications when the person has no documents and claims to come from an area where its impossible to get reliable information. Add to that the HR act and how hard it is to deport people who have no papers, I do not see any chance of making the process easier or quicker.
how can you get on a plane without documentation?While I do not say the Customs and Border agency is very efficient I also know how hard it is assess refugee applications when the person has no documents and claims to come from an area where its impossible to get reliable information. Add to that the HR act and how hard it is to deport people who have no papers, I do not see any chance of making the process easier or quicker.
why should a ferry or the tunnel be any different?
FiF said:
It's clear to me that before the current border Le Touquet agreement were cancelled then we would see an increase in asylum claim's. Currently 30,000 per year, was 80,000 iirc.
Is it going to get rid off the Jungle in Calais? Probably not unless the French and the ferry operators abdicate their responsibility and just bus people on board willy nilly, in which case they should be fined and right so.
Would it result in UK jungle camps, well assuming border officials get their act together and process asylum claim's properly then no, because either people are granted asylum and then they're off into the community or they are bunged back from wherever they came.
The claim that benefit changes will reduce the pull is probably correct but it will take time to take some effect, plus is partly negated by the ability for people to survive off the radar in the black economy.
Anyway immigration is a minor side issue to the referendum, Brexit won't reduce immigration and a stop to immigration is actually a bad thing for the economy. In theory it might allow us more of a say, but not for many years yet as in order to make smooth fisxally neutral exit, thus giving the stability that the economy and business needs, then nothing much will need to change for years.
I agree with much of this but a couple of points.Is it going to get rid off the Jungle in Calais? Probably not unless the French and the ferry operators abdicate their responsibility and just bus people on board willy nilly, in which case they should be fined and right so.
Would it result in UK jungle camps, well assuming border officials get their act together and process asylum claim's properly then no, because either people are granted asylum and then they're off into the community or they are bunged back from wherever they came.
The claim that benefit changes will reduce the pull is probably correct but it will take time to take some effect, plus is partly negated by the ability for people to survive off the radar in the black economy.
Anyway immigration is a minor side issue to the referendum, Brexit won't reduce immigration and a stop to immigration is actually a bad thing for the economy. In theory it might allow us more of a say, but not for many years yet as in order to make smooth fisxally neutral exit, thus giving the stability that the economy and business needs, then nothing much will need to change for years.
While I do not say the Customs and Border agency is very efficient I also know how hard it is assess refugee applications when the person has no documents and claims to come from an area where its impossible to get reliable information. Add to that the HR act and how hard it is to deport people who have no papers, I do not see any chance of making the process easier or quicker.
The EU changes will have no effect on refugees rights to benefits. They are not from the EU so this is a UK decision subject to the HR act. We do not allow refugees to work so we have to give them benefits or they would stave.
Scuffers said:
we do the same Aus did, you pick them up, sink their boats, take them back to the country they embarked from.
it's really not that hard, just needs political will and determination.
back this up with a proper information campaign world wide that we simply will not allow people to illegally enter the UK, job done.
Yes, the liberal left will go mad along with amnesty etc etc. but once it's clear what the policy is and we do mean it, then it will get a lot easier, ie. if you want to claim asylum in the UK you need to apply at one of our embassies BEFORE you rock up here.
Added to which the distance from Turkey to some of these Greek Islands is tiny so it is not a very useful comparison. it's really not that hard, just needs political will and determination.
back this up with a proper information campaign world wide that we simply will not allow people to illegally enter the UK, job done.
Yes, the liberal left will go mad along with amnesty etc etc. but once it's clear what the policy is and we do mean it, then it will get a lot easier, ie. if you want to claim asylum in the UK you need to apply at one of our embassies BEFORE you rock up here.
Scuffers said:
we do the same Aus did, you pick them up, sink their boats,
You do understand that's not what Australia does???Scuffers said:
take them back to the country they embarked from.
So the Royal Navy should illegally breach international law by entering the waters and territory of foreign Governments to drop off irregular migrants who may or may not come from their!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Scuffers said:
back this up with a proper information campaign world wide that we simply will not allow people to illegally enter the UK, job done.
No mention of the UN treaty? You may remember UKIP praised it in last years manifesto.Edited by Mrr T on Monday 8th February 12:01
Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
we do the same Aus did, you pick them up, sink their boats,
You do understand that's not what Australia does???Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
take them back to the country they embarked from.
So the Royal Nave should illegally breach international law by entering the waters and territory of foreign Governments to drop off irregular migrants who may or may not come from their!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
back this up with a proper information campaign world wide that we simply will not allow people to illegally enter the UK, job done.
No mention of the UN treaty? You may remember UKIP praised it in last years manifesto.Please, spell out exactly which treaty this is in violation of?
Andy Zarse said:
Look, either the French want to trade with us and export their goods, or they don't. Either they want our tourist £££s or they don't. And if they do, they will have to continue to operate a proper border control policy. I'm not saying this country can't continue to help share the burden in terms of cost and manpower, but in the final analysis it's down to the French. Whether or not the UK is in the Eu seems completely irrelevant to my mind.
In my mind, this is what separates the methodology of the two camps.Out Camp uses facts, figures, logic, existing examples and optimism to define their argument.
In Camp uses fear and negativity.
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
I agree with much of this but a couple of points.
While I do not say the Customs and Border agency is very efficient I also know how hard it is assess refugee applications when the person has no documents and claims to come from an area where its impossible to get reliable information. Add to that the HR act and how hard it is to deport people who have no papers, I do not see any chance of making the process easier or quicker.
how can you get on a plane without documentation?While I do not say the Customs and Border agency is very efficient I also know how hard it is assess refugee applications when the person has no documents and claims to come from an area where its impossible to get reliable information. Add to that the HR act and how hard it is to deport people who have no papers, I do not see any chance of making the process easier or quicker.
why should a ferry or the tunnel be any different?
A plane is a long pointy thing which does not float very well. To get on a plane you need to book a ticket so you need to give lots of information and show visas etc. It very difficult to stow away on a plane.
A ferry is also long and pointy but it floats. You also have to book and give lots of details but ferries also take on board lots and lots of lorries. Lorries are large thing which have travelled across Europe and have lots of places to hide in.
Does that help?
Mrr T said:
Do you know the difference between a plane and a ferry?
A plane is a long pointy thing which does not float very well. To get on a plane you need to book a ticket so you need to give lots of information and show visas etc. It very difficult to stow away on a plane.
A ferry is also long and pointy but it floats. You also have to book and give lots of details but ferries also take on board lots and lots of lorries. Lorries are large thing which have travelled across Europe and have lots of places to hide in.
Does that help?
not really no.A plane is a long pointy thing which does not float very well. To get on a plane you need to book a ticket so you need to give lots of information and show visas etc. It very difficult to stow away on a plane.
A ferry is also long and pointy but it floats. You also have to book and give lots of details but ferries also take on board lots and lots of lorries. Lorries are large thing which have travelled across Europe and have lots of places to hide in.
Does that help?
how do they got aboard the lorries?
easy, becuse there is a bottle neck at the port entrances that force them to slow down and stop, solve that problem, you stop the lorry jumpers.
after this, search the trucks BEFORE they get on the ferries/tunnel, just like you search passengers before they fly.
Yes, it's a ball-ache, but less of one than dealing with the fallout.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff