EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[edwin_m]

My mention of sneaking was in reference to the ferry from France to Ireland. I believe you need to show some form of identification for that (like Holyhead-Dublin, or crossing the English Channel).

Going from the Republic to Northern Ireland is currently trivial, but our imaginary migrant would have to get into Ireland first.

One of the main points put forward by Leavers was that freedom of movement within the EU would no longer apply to the UK. It must therefore become possible for the UK, if it so chooses, to deny entry to someone who has freedom of movement within the EU 27.

As that person has freedom of movement wihtin the EU, they could travel freely to Ireland from any other EU state or even a non-EU state. With no ID checks on the Irish border there would be nothing to stop them crossing into Northern Ireland. The DUP refuses to countenance checks on the crossing between NI and Britain so that person would then have free access to the whole UK. They could not gain legal employment or claim benefits but could stay here and work in the black economy or embark on a life of crime.

So essentially if you want control of borders you have to have a hard border in Ireland. Yet another fundamental contradiction the Brexiters have failed to face up to.

 

[edwin_m]

I still have a children's world atlas that I got in 1982. It has a map of Europe showing the GDP per capita of each country. The UK had the third lowest GDP per capita in the EEC, only Ireland and Italy were lower. Most EEC countries had a GDP per capita at least 50% higher than the UK.

However on a per-capita basis we're still in the bottom third of EU states, still above Italy but Ireland has shot up to near the top. Possibly showing that others have taken more advantage of their EU membership than the UK has, as well as a comment on our culture of presenteeism and make do and mend rather than working smartly.

 

[Killingworth]

[QUOTE] ="edwin_m, post: 4136638, member: 20251"However on a per-capita basis we're still in the bottom third of EU states, still above Italy but Ireland has shot up to near the top. Possibly showing that others have taken more advantage of their EU membership than the UK has, as well as a comment on our culture of presenteeism and make do and mend rather than working smartly.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. We haven't taken the EU sufficiently seriously for far too long to ensure we get enough benefit. Even this week there's a story that we may be about to hand back cash because we haven't been able to spend it - on alleviating child poverty. It's not a lot, but it's a sign of our lack of understanding of how to use the rules to our advantage. See; Child poverty cash handed back to Europe unspent

More than £3.5m intended to alleviate child poverty and homelessness is at risk of being wasted because the government has failed to spend it, says a House of Lords committee.

Peers have written to the Home Office saying it is "extraordinary" that the EU funding has not been used.

They warn that some of the cash has already been forfeited and are worried about the rest being handed back.

The government said there had been "barriers" over spending the money.

But peers have written to complain that after almost six years, the government has failed to deliver spending aimed at addressing "the worst forms of poverty".

About £580,000 of unspent cash has so far been taken back - and a further similar amount is at risk of being deducted at the end of the year.

'Unbelievable'
"The government had an opportunity to help support the most disadvantaged people in the UK but has instead wasted over half a million pounds," said Lord Jay, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

He said it was "astonishing" that so long has been taken in deciding how to use the money - and said having to give back some of the funding was "unbelievably inept".

• Pupil poverty pressure on school cash
• Food bank supplies for record numbers
• Rough sleeping hits hard on local high streets

The UK was allocated more than £3.5m for 2014 to 2020 from the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, to be used in projects such as child poverty, homelessness or food banks.

There were initial plans in the UK to use this for school breakfast clubs in deprived areas, but these were not eligible for the funding.

Image copyright Getty Images
But the House of Lords committee criticised the government for not finding "an alternative use for this money".

And the peers are concerned that in the event of a no-deal Brexit all the remaining money might have to be returned.

Lord Jay said "all the other EU countries have found ways to spend this on some of the most deprived people - apart from us".

He said the committee found it "frankly unbelievable" when public services faced budget pressures that money "had to be given back because a way hasn't been found of spending it".

Modern slavery
Lord Boswell, chairman of the Lords EU Committee, has written to the Home Office saying it is "extraordinary" that this failure has wasted so much of the UK's allocation of funding.

Elsewhere in the EU, about 13 million people received assistance from this funding, with the most common support being in food aid.

The Home Office, responding to the committee's concerns, said the original plan to use the money for school breakfast clubs had faced "barriers" from eligibility rules and "extensive audit requirements, procurement requirements and administrative costs".

The Home Office says there are now plans to use funding for projects for young refugees or "potential victims of modern slavery, some of whom are unaccompanied children and young people".

Lord Jay said this was a "very good idea" - but he wanted assurances that it would be delivered.

There is much wrong with the EU. Most of our fellow members see that, although they differ on priorities as to what and how to put it right. We have potential allies that could help there, but we seem to enjoy insulting their intelligence. We've looked for any little thing to grouse about, UKIP most of all. See how their members behaved over the last 5 years Parliament. Most were booted out, switched to another party or left. They made Britain look like a bad joke. Yet neither major party seemed to positively engage with Europe or see the danger; and certainly hadn't a clue what to do about it.

Worse, our UK Parliament has handled this Brexit procedure so badly that Nigel Farage gained even more seats in the new European Parliament.

We've hardly started the transition proper yet. This graphic below is from the Express, a paper that champions Brexit. It may ring a few alarm bells. A soft Brexit wouldn't be as bad, but it wouldn't be good. Who comes off worst? Who will end up supporting the 5 smaller members who'll suffer most but the remaining 22 out of 27? Who will support us? Why and who would want to support us for causing this level of damage? Donald Trump, Putin, the Chinese, the Gulf States?

Cheer up, we'll muddle through, we'll cope.

Graphic shows Britain likely to lose 526,83 jobs if hard Brexit and other most impacted countries would be Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Denmark, all normally most supportive of Britain, all losing 1.3% to 5.0% employment. Thanks a lot.

 

[Enthusiast]

The issue of a border in Ireland is a non-issue. Why? SImply because neither the UK nor Ireland has any intention of imposing one and the EU has neither the resources nor the authority to do so. So what will happen on the road between Belfast and Dublin on Day One of Brexit? Absolutely nothing. Quite how the EU will protect the integrity of its Single Market is anybody's guess. But that's their problem. But one thing is certain - there will be no customs checks on the border. The answer will probably lie along similar lines to the way huge volumes of goods enter the EU at places like Felixstowe every day. Only about 2% of those goods are subject to physical checks by men with clipboards. I'm sure a similar arrangement can be devised for the relatively small volume of goods that will enter the EU from the six counties.

 

[takno]

The issue of a border in Ireland is a non-issue. Why? SImply because neither the UK nor Ireland has any intention of imposing one and the EU has neither the resources nor the authority to do so. So what will happen on the road between Belfast and Dublin on Day One of Brexit? Absolutely nothing. Quite how the EU will protect the integrity of its Single Market is anybody's guess. But that's their problem. But one thing is certain - there will be no customs checks on the border. The answer will probably lie along similar lines to the way huge volumes of goods enter the EU at places like Felixstowe every day. Only about 2% of those goods are subject to physical checks by men with clipboards. I'm sure a similar arrangement can be devised for the relatively small volume of goods that will enter the EU from the six counties.

There is a huge amount of stuff crossing the border just now, often several times during the production process, so "just" 2% of the current trade is a massive impact. If we leave without a deal Ireland will impose a border. They will have to do it even if they try not to (which they won't), because the EU can impose any number of restrictions to force them to. In turn the EU will be forced to make them do it by WTO rules. This will happen however sunny and optimistic we persist in pretending to be

 

[Bantamzen]

[QUOTE="edwin_m, post: 4136638, member: 20251"]However on a per-capita basis we're still in the bottom third of EU states, still above Italy but Ireland has shot up to near the top. Possibly showing that others have taken more advantage of their EU membership than the UK has, as well as a comment on our culture of presenteeism and make do and mend rather than working smartly.

Absolutely. We haven't taken the EU sufficiently seriously for far too long to ensure we get enough benefit. Even this week there's a story that we may be about to hand back cash because we haven't been able to spend it - on alleviating child poverty. It's not a lot, but it's a sign of our lack of understanding of how to use the rules to our advantage. See; Child poverty cash handed back to Europe unspent



There is much wrong with the EU. Most of our fellow members see that, although they differ on priorities as to what and how to put it right. We have potential allies that could help there, but we seem to enjoy insulting their intelligence. We've looked for any little thing to grouse about, UKIP most of all. See how their members behaved over the last 5 years Parliament. Most were booted out, switched to another party or left. They made Britain look like a bad joke. Yet neither major party seemed to positively engage with Europe or see the danger; and certainly hadn't a clue what to do about it.

Worse, our UK Parliament has handled this Brexit procedure so badly that Nigel Farage gained even more seats in the new European Parliament.

We've hardly started the transition proper yet. This graphic below is from the Express, a paper that champions Brexit. It may ring a few alarm bells. A soft Brexit wouldn't be as bad, but it wouldn't be good. Who comes off worst? Who will end up supporting the 5 smaller members who'll suffer most but the remaining 22 out of 27? Who will support us? Why and who would want to support us for causing this level of damage? Donald Trump, Putin, the Chinese, the Gulf States?

Cheer up, we'll muddle through, we'll cope.

Graphic shows Britain likely to lose 526,83 jobs if hard Brexit and other most impacted countries would be Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Denmark, all normally most supportive of Britain, all losing 1.3% to 5.0% employment. Thanks a lot.
View attachment 66690

When the rabidly Brexit supporting Express reports that over half a million UK jobs could be lost in the case of a no deal, then it is surely time for even the most stubborn of Brexiteers to sit up and take notice. Of course they won't though, Vanity Project Brexit is not a political aspiration any more, it has all but achieved a religious status, with it's supporters blindly believing anything it's leaders spout.

 

[EM2]

Quite how the EU will protect the integrity of its Single Market is anybody's guess. But that's their problem. But one thing is certain - there will be no customs checks on the border.

If this is the case, how does the UK keep control of its borders in this scenario?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

l

When the rabidly Brexit supporting Express reports that over half a million UK jobs could be lost in the case of a no deal, then it is surely time for even the most stubborn of Brexiteers to sit up and take notice. Of course they won't though, Vanity Project Brexit is not a political aspiration any more, it has all but achieved a religious status, with it's supporters blindly believing anything it's leaders spout.

At the time of the referendum, the Labour Party's political advisors, unlike what appears to have been in the minds of those Labour voters in many Labour constituencies that recorded a "leave" majority, were well aware of the implications of job losses and would have been in discussions with the trades union movement discussing possible job losses in a "leave scenario (I discount the RMT executive who were in favour of "leave" as they seem not to be affiliated to the Labour party then). Since the time of the referendum, much time then passed with Corbyn as the leader of his party not making anything like a show of opposition to "leave" until the last week or so.

So the mention of the Express above is naught but a smokescreen to hide the shortcomings of the Labour party response.

 

[dgl]

If this is the case, how does the UK keep control of its borders in this scenario?

Precisely, although from a remainers standpoint it would be great to see the look on brexiteers faces when they realise that instead of having more supposed control of our boarders (which shock horror we won't really, and more than likely not have the data to stop EU crims from coming in as well) we will have a place where migrants can just walk on in, with a short ferry/plane ride to the mainland.

Now imagine if Ireland now decided to join the Schengen zone?, bye, bye restricting entry to the UK.

Lastly if there is a no deal and we have the inevitable job cuts it should be up to Nigel Farage and his cronies to hand out the P45's to the now unemployed, and with each one handed out should be made to apologies for the lies and scaremongering that people like him used to convince us to vote leave, therefore causing them to lose their jobs.

 

[edwin_m]

Precisely, although from a remainers standpoint it would be great to see the look on brexiteers faces when they realise that instead of having more supposed control of our boarders (which shock horror we won't really, and more than likely not have the data to stop EU crims from coming in as well) we will have a place where migrants can just walk on in, with a short ferry/plane ride to the mainland.

Now imagine if Ireland now decided to join the Schengen zone?, bye, bye restricting entry to the UK.

Lastly if there is a no deal and we have the inevitable job cuts it should be up to Nigel Farage and his cronies to hand out the P45's to the now unemployed, and with each one handed out should be made to apologies for the lies and scaremongering that people like him used to convince us to vote leave, therefore causing them to lose their jobs.

I don't think there will be much scope for gloating. Brexit in any form, particularly no deal, is hugely harmful to leavers and remainers alike, excepting the Brexit elite who are sufficiently well off to insulate themselves and indeed probably make a killing on the markets too, before taking advantage of the privilege they have taken from everyone else and going to live in another country.

 

[Bantamzen]

l


At the time of the referendum, the Labour Party's political advisors, unlike what appears to have been in the minds of those Labour voters in many Labour constituencies that recorded a "leave" majority, were well aware of the implications of job losses and would have been in discussions with the trades union movement discussing possible job losses in a "leave scenario (I discount the RMT executive who were in favour of "leave" as they seem not to be affiliated to the Labour party then). Since the time of the referendum, much time then passed with Corbyn as the leader of his party not making anything like a show of opposition to "leave" until the last week or so.

So the mention of the Express above is naught but a smokescreen to hide the shortcomings of the Labour party response.

To be absolutely blunt, the Labour party under Corbyn are largely irrelevant as they stand little to no chance of ever forming a government under his stewardship, and they are equally as incapable of forming a cohesive policy on Brexit.

But Brexit is not, nor should it be drawn on party political lines. It should be drawn on what is best for this country, and all it's citizens. However it most certainly hasn't been campaigned for along these lines, there has never really be a concerted, full & honest debate on the pros and cons of staying or leaving. And if anything the support for Brexit is more full of empty rhetoric than in any other time since the referendum was called. Which is why I believe now more than ever that the whole process needs to be reset. That the Express is, albeit subtlety, now warning of serious numbers of job losses shows just how serious things have become. This remember is a publication that wholeheartedly supports a hard Brexit, and has tried at every turn to rubbish exactly these kinds of concerns as "Project Fear".

 

[edwin_m]

Latest seems to be that Dominc Cummings has said that if there was a vote of no confidence, the government could simply postpone the election to after 31 October.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49223300

The Sunday Telegraph says that MPs have been told it is "too late" to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal on 31 October. The paper says Dominic Cummings, the prime minister's aide, has briefed MPs that the opposition has missed the chance to force an election before the deadline.

I think that's wrong. In the event of a vote of no confidence no election is needed if a new government can be formed in 14 days. The people who voted out the old government could presumably form a new one for the purposes of asking for Brexit extension, which the EU has said it will grant for a good reason such as an election or referendum. It could then either dissolve itself and call an election.

 

[edwin_m]

To be absolutely blunt, the Labour party under Corbyn are largely irrelevant as they stand little to no chance of ever forming a government under his stewardship, and they are equally as incapable of forming a cohesive policy on Brexit.

Unfortunately I suggest they are hugely relevant. As I've posted before Labour had and missed several opportunities to get us out of this mess. Even now their ambiguous stance means that in likely event of an early election an election people don't know what they stand for, and they risk splitting the Remain vote which according to opinion polls is now a narrow but measurable majority of the population. All Boris then needs to do is form a pact with Nigel, where by an amazing coincidence the Tories would agree to stand aside everywhere there candidate was any less than an ardent Leaver, and the travesty of democracy would be complete.

Labour needs to come out clearly for remain, and the LibDems and other Remain parties should unilaterally stand aside in any constituency where the Labour candidate had the best chance of beting the Tories, except where that candidate supports leaving.

 

[Bantamzen]

Unfortunately I suggest they are hugely relevant. As I've posted before Labour had and missed several opportunities to get us out of this mess. Even now their ambiguous stance means that in likely event of an early election an election people don't know what they stand for, and they risk splitting the Remain vote which according to opinion polls is now a narrow but measurable majority of the population. All Boris then needs to do is form a pact with Nigel, where by an amazing coincidence the Tories would agree to stand aside everywhere there candidate was any less than an ardent Leaver, and the travesty of democracy would be complete.

Labour needs to come out clearly for remain, and the LibDems and other Remain parties should unilaterally stand aside in any constituency where the Labour candidate had the best chance of beting the Tories, except where that candidate supports leaving.

Don't get me wrong, the should be relevant as the opposition. Sadly they do not meet up to being an effective opposition. If anything it will be Tory defections that I suspect will be the defining moments in Parliament.

 

[Typhoon]

Latest seems to be that Dominic Cummings has said that if there was a vote of no confidence, the government could simply postpone the election to after 31 October.

Dominic Cummings - someone you instinctively don't trust!

 

[Enthusiast]

If this is the case, how does the UK keep control of its borders in this scenario?

In the same way as it does now. Protecting ones borders does not mean protect them in accordance with somebody else's rules. The UK has chosen not to enforce a border with Ireland for a hundred years (apart from briefly and sparsely during the "Troubles"). There is no reason for the UK to change its arrangements simply because it is leaving the EU.

Precisely, although from a remainers standpoint it would be great to see the look on brexiteers faces when they realise that instead of having more supposed control of our boarders (which shock horror we won't really, and more than likely not have the data to stop EU crims from coming in as well) we will have a place where migrants can just walk on in, with a short ferry/plane ride to the mainland.

So why don't they do that now, then? I don't know of a huge problem with illegal migrants from the Continent entering Ireland and then the UK.

 

[edwin_m]

In the same way as it does now. Protecting ones borders does not mean protect them in accordance with somebody else's rules. The UK has chosen not to enforce a border with Ireland for a hundred years (apart from briefly and sparsely during the "Troubles"). There is no reason for the UK to change its arrangements simply because it is leaving the EU.

So why don't they do that now, then? I don't know of a huge problem with illegal migrants from the Continent entering Ireland and then the UK.

It's not me that thinks it's a problem. Ending free movement between the EU and the UK was one of the reasons suggested to vote for Brexit, and if there's a straightforward way for people who have free movement to get into the UK, then free movement hasn't really been ended. The reason people don't enter by the roundabout route via Ireland is that they can enter by direct routes until free movement ends.

 

[Howardh]

Having just returned from Gibraltar, it's notable the sheer number of Spanish nationals working there, most will cross the border daily (several times daily for some). Will these automatically be granted working visas?

 

[cactustwirly]

In the same way as it does now. Protecting ones borders does not mean protect them in accordance with somebody else's rules. The UK has chosen not to enforce a border with Ireland for a hundred years (apart from briefly and sparsely during the "Troubles"). There is no reason for the UK to change its arrangements simply because it is leaving the EU.



So why don't they do that now, then? I don't know of a huge problem with illegal migrants from the Continent entering Ireland and then the UK.

The UK and EU will have to put up a physical border in Ireland if there is a no deal Brexit, as the WTO rules say we cannot discriminate against other nations unless you have a deal agreed

 

[EM2]

In the same way as it does now. Protecting ones borders does not mean protect them in accordance with somebody else's rules.

But the border now is not protected, it is open.

The UK has chosen not to enforce a border with Ireland for a hundred years (apart from briefly and sparsely during the "Troubles").

It was previously not open and was enforced (see the article I linked to on the last page).

There is no reason for the UK to change its arrangements simply because it is leaving the EU.

The UK has previously changed its arrangements depending on the circumstances. Why are these circumstances different?

 

[Typhoon]

The reason people don't enter by the roundabout route via Ireland is that they can enter by direct routes until free movement ends.

The people smugglers already have 31st October ringed on their calendars.

 

[fowler9]

I personally know someone who uses the open border in Ireland to avoid income tax and that is before we even leave the EU.

 

[Howardh]

I personally know someone who uses the open border in Ireland to avoid income tax and that is before we even leave the EU.

Not sure which side of the border is better for reducing tax, however that wouldn't surprise me one bit as many will work in one and live in the other. If petrol is cheaper on one side, that's where they will go and fill up.

 

[fowler9]

Not sure which side of the border is better for reducing tax, however that wouldn't surprise me one bit as many will work in one and live in the other. If petrol is cheaper on one side, that's where they will go and fill up.

I get your point but the person I am talking about is way beyond where they buy their petrol.

 

[Enthusiast]

The people smugglers already have 31st October ringed on their calendars.

Why would that be then?

There is no "freedom of movement" between continental Europe and the UK. There is the right to work and settle for those legally entitled to be within the bloc. Those arriving from the EU into the UK go through the same border control as those arriving from elsewhere. Leaving aside asylum claims on arrival, only if they are entitled to be in the EU will they be given permission to enter the UK.

At present the people whom the smugglers are smuggling from (say) France have no right of entry to the UK. They would (or should) be denied boarding if they attempted to travel legitimately by air or sea as the UK is not party to Schengen and they would be denied entry on arrival. The same situation applies to Ireland (also not party to Schengen). The smugglers use the sea crossing direct from France because it is the shortest route. So, why have the smugglers got their calendars marked? They will continue to attempt to smuggle people into the UK. They will continue to do so illegally and directly from France. Why would they go to the bother of sending their cargo via Ireland (with all the associated extra difficulties, risk and expense involved) when their activities are every bit as illegal whether the UK is part of the EU or not? What exactly changes for them on October 31st?

 

[Enthusiast]

The UK and EU will have to put up a physical border in Ireland if there is a no deal Brexit, as the WTO rules say we cannot discriminate against other nations unless you have a deal agreed

I think you will find that the non-discrimination conditions apply to the prohibition of differential tariffs. I don't believe there is anything to prevent a country applying different border controls on their trading partners.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think you will find that the non-discrimination conditions apply to the prohibition of differential tariffs. I don't believe there is anything to prevent a country applying different border controls on their trading partners.

But if you didn't have a customs border, then you would have to drop all the tariffs anyway wouldn't you?

 

[furnessvale]

I personally know someone who uses the open border in Ireland to avoid income tax and that is before we even leave the EU.

You appear to be making the case for a closed border.

 

[Howardh]

Here we go -

There is no "freedom of movement" between continental Europe and the UK.

Yes there is.

There is the right to work and settle for those legally entitled to be within the bloc

Which is freedom of movement.

Those arriving from the EU into the UK go through the same border control as those arriving from elsewhere.

No they don't. They can't use the "E" gates for starters, and many have to show a visa to a physical officer.

Leaving aside asylum claims on arrival, only if they are entitled to be in the EU will they be given permission to enter the UK.

If they are from the EU and entitled to be there then yes.

At present the people whom the smugglers are smuggling from (say) France have no right of entry to the UK.

True if they are from outside the EU and don't have a UK visa.

They would (or should) be denied boarding if they attempted to travel legitimately by air or sea as the UK is not party to Schengen and they would be denied entry on arrival.

Do you mean boarding a plane/ferry or alighting? If they are in the EU illegally they shouldn't have got through the EU's strong external border and shouldn't be crossing from the continent to the UK as they shouldn't be there in the first place.

If they don't have a UK visa they should be denied entry. The same situation applies to Ireland (also not party to Schengen). The smugglers use the sea crossing direct from France because it is the shortest route. So, why have the smugglers got their calendars marked? They will continue to attempt to smuggle people into the UK. They will continue to do so illegally and directly from France. Why would they go to the bother of sending their cargo via Ireland (with all the associated extra difficulties, risk and expense involved) when their activities are every bit as illegal whether the UK is part of the EU or not? What exactly changes for them on October 31st?

Think you have the wrong end of the stick here. No-one is suggesting people smuggling from OUTSIDE the EU. What we are saying is that, in future, we would have the ability to block any unwanted EU citizens arriving here (which they are fully entitled to do now of course. Could be the unemployed, or criminals, suspected terrorists etc. By leaving the Ireland/UK border wide open, the Irish can't stop them arriving and travelling through Ireland (except for extremely serious or wanted criminals) and once they reached the Ireland/UK border they just stroll across into the UK, unchecked and unknown.

What we are trying to get across is those, let's say a Romanian, who can currently legally arrive in the UK and seek/gain work or limited benefits for a short time won't be able to in future, however
(1) he could be "smuggled" across that Irish border as he's legally entitled to be in Republic of Ireland
or
(2) he comes armed with £200, a day return Eurostar ticket, says he's a tourist going shopping in London and disappears.

 

[Howardh]

You appear to be making the case for a closed border.

Same applies to anyone moving to the Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc. Anyone using Ireland as a tax-haven (really??) could just as easily use those I mention. Think the concern will be when different taxes and tariffs on goods crossing that border; both ways. Then what? Do we have officers patrolling the border and risking their lives every second of the day? If not, the only alternative is to keep zero tariffs and equal (ish) tax rates and stay at least in the EEA.