Brexit matters

[Howardh]

Could you clarify which freedom of movement rules allowed us to prevent hundreds of thousands of EU citizens from arriving in the UK each year?

The three month rule, where if they couldn't support themselves they had to return. Problem is, we never enforced that largely. Also meant you could concentrate resources on those coming from outside the EEA.
When I'm on my pc and not mobile I'll post a link so the rules can be read.
There was no reason why any EEA citizen should have been "sponging" off the state, contrary to press belief!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I expect a lot of people coming are in lorries not being checked at Dover right now.. coming in right underneath our nose, along with counterfeit goods, dodgy food and more. You know, because we can't check goods coming in due to lack of resources (and then we moan that France IS doing its checks the other way).

And you know exactly what I mean about protecting borders, given we aren't in the Schengen Area. At one point 10 years ago, I thought we might join. How wrong I was - and imagine the difference if we had.

No, I don't know exactly what you mean. As far as I can make out, it looks like you're possibly using the phrase 'protecting borders' to refer to the fact that we weren't in Schengen and so could check people's passports - that's the only way I can make any sense of your comments. But, as I'm sure you're well aware, that is not the sense in which most people use the phrase in the context of Brexit and freedom of movement: Generally, it refers to how FOM rules meant that the UK had no legal way of keeping EU migration levels at a sustainable level, and very little way of controlling who could come to live in the UK. That is after all the real problem that motivated so many people to vote for Brexit.

As for the smuggling on boats. If they had to apply for asylum in France, then they could be treated as illegals in the water and dealt with differently to now

The Government appears to be in the process of introducing legislation to do exactly that. So the existence or non-existence of some facility to allow people to apply for asylum from France doesn't appear to have any bearing on whether we can do that. (Although I do have a concern that you need some way to allow people to claim asylum. I just don't think facilities in France are a remotely sensible proposal to achieve that).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2023 ==

The three month rule, where if they couldn't support themselves they had to return.

But that would only make a difference to a tiny minority of arrivals from Europe - the vast majority of whom would either have already had job offers or would have found work within 3 months. So it makes no practical difference to the fundamental problem: That we FOM rules meant the UK had no legal way to keep EU migration at a sustainable level.

 

[Howardh]

But that would only make a difference to a tiny minority of arrivals from Europe - the vast majority of whom would either have already had job offers or would have found work within 3 months. So it makes no practical difference to the fundamental problem: That we FOM rules meant the UK had no legal way to keep EU migration at a sustainable level.

Yes, as badly needed doctors, nurses, dentists, bus drivers, train drivers, fruit pickers etc etc. And by the same token, UK nationals over there working in hospitality, schools, transport etc. It was a two-way thing, where many of us wanted to retire in the sun (Spain/France/Portugal etc) thus relieving the stress on the NHS for those remaining here.

When Brexiters moan about "immigration" they conveniently forgot that WE had the absolute right to be immigrants ourselves, over there. Therefore it would be reasonably equal and sustainable. Now we simply import from the rest of the world, and that's not a two-way thing any more.

Meanwhile, as promised - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers#:~:text=For the first three months,valid identity card or passport.

Directive 2004/38/EC introduces EU citizenship as the basic status for nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in EU territory. For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside in the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

The right of Union citizens to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions: for those who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and on them having sickness insurance. Students and those completing vocational training also have the right of residence, as do (involuntarily) unemployed persons who have registered as unemployed. (My bold)

 

[Sm5]

The issue of proving sickness insurance has become a problem for many claiming settled status, where they couldnt prove NI contributions.

 

[najaB]

Remind me again why, if someone is already in a safe country (France) and is knowingly declining the chance to claim asylum in that country, we should set up an office to let them apply for asylum in the UK instead?

It isn't for us to decide if France is a 'safe country' for that person. For the umpteenth time: there is no moral or legal requirement for a person to seek asylum in any particular country that they may pass through.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It isn't for us to decide if France is a 'safe country' for that person.

I disagree. By any reasonable evidence-based standards, France is relatively safe. It is a democracy. It has a Government that does not persecute people based on their political or religious beliefs and governs according to rule of law. Of course it's not a perfect country, and it suffers from some racism and anti-migrant sentiment amongst some of the population, but that's true of basically any country. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the UK Government to presume that France is safe, and therefore that an asylum seeker who is in France and has the opportunity to claim asylum there but chooses not to is probably abusing the system.

For the umpteenth time: there is no moral or legal requirement for a person to seek asylum in any particular country that they may pass through.

Legally I believe you are correct - and I would regard that as a failing of the law. But morally I would again disagree with you. If you are being persecuted and therefore need to flee your country, then it is reasonable for you to find whichever safe country you can most easily get to and claim asylum there. But that should not give you the right to roam the World picking and choosing which country you think you'd like to live in. After all, noone else has that right.

 

[alex397]

If we are going back to the “first safe country” argument again, would it be fair for the “first safe countries” to take all asylum seekers? Probably not. France could use that arguement and most other continental European countries, meaning the countries along the Mediterranean would have no help. And yes, I’m aware that France has a Mediterranean coast, but it’s no where near Africa / Middle East compared to Spain, Italy, Greece etc.

Anyway, most asylum seekers do go to the first safe country or nearby. The top three host countries of Syrian refugees, for example, in 2022 were Turkey (over 3.5 million), Lebanon (831,000) and Jordan (675,000). How many Syrian refugees were in the UK in 2022? Just over 12,000. France has taken 39,000. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/740233/major-syrian-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/

Why shouldn’t the UK take asylum seekers just because we arn’t the first ‘safe country’? It helps our neighbours to cope with sudden increases of population.

The right-wing media like to portray the UK being ‘swamped’ and ‘invaded’ (such lovely language to describe fellow human beings) when in reality we take far less than other countries.

 

[najaB]

If you are being persecuted and therefore need to flee your country, then it is reasonable for you to find whichever safe country you can most easily get to and claim asylum there. But that should not give you the right to roam the World picking and choosing which country you think you'd like to live in. After all, noone else has that right.

Safety is a psychological thing and, as such, is subjective. I can't decide for you where you will feel safe.

And yes, everyone has the right to claim asylum in any country of the world. What nobody has is the right to be granted asylum where they want.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Safety is a psychological thing and, as such, is subjective. I can't decide for you where you will feel safe.

I think it's more subtle than that. The *perception* of safety is largely a psychological thing, but the *reality* of whether an environment is safe is usually a statistically measurable matter of fact. And that raises the question of what you should do if the perception is massively different from the reality (something that quite often happens in different walks of life). Do you make policy based on people's perceptions or based on the reality? In the case of asylum seekers, it doesn't seem inappropriate to consider asylum requests based on the reality of the situation, possibly while also seeking to educate/reassure people about what a country is like.

Having said that, I'm not sure how relevant this is to people trying to cross the Channel in small boats: Does anyone seriously believe that most people are doing that because they mistakenly believe France is some kind of unsafe evil dictatorship, rather than because they have decided, despite knowing that France is a democratic country, that they'd prefer to live in the UK?

 

[AlterEgo]

Of course one of the main reasons asylum seekers come to Britain is because we have a limited return agreement with France, something which is definitely a Brexit consequence.

 

[najaB]

I think it's more subtle than that. The *perception* of safety is largely a psychological thing, but the *reality* of whether an environment is safe is usually a statistically measurable matter of fact.

People don't decide to leave where they are because of the reality of their safety, they make the decision to leave because of their perception that they aren't safe.

Does anyone seriously believe that most people are doing that because they mistakenly believe France is some kind of unsafe evil dictatorship, rather than because they have decided, despite knowing that France is a democratic country, that they'd prefer to live in the UK?

They take the additional risk to get to the UK because it is where they feel safest.

 

[REVUpminster]

The UK population has gone up by 500,000 since 2020 through a pandemic when a lot of people left. How can the country house, school, provide health and welfare for them. The southwest is building lots of houses but they seem to be occupied by white flight from the cities. You don't see many ethnic minorities on BBC spotlight. ITV West Country have a few because they have Bristol in their area. It was always a joke that Paignton has more people from London and Birmingham than local natives mainly because of retirees but now there are many scouse and mancunian accents in the new houses.

 

[najaB]

The UK population has gone up by 500,000 since 2020 through a pandemic when a lot of people left. How can the country house, school, provide health and welfare for them.

By using the taxes generated by the additional economic activity that those people facilitate to pay for houses, schools, the NHS and welfare services.

 

[Annetts key]

I disagree. By any reasonable evidence-based standards, France is relatively safe. It is a democracy. It has a Government that does not persecute people based on their political or religious beliefs and governs according to rule of law. Of course it's not a perfect country, and it suffers from some racism and anti-migrant sentiment amongst some of the population, but that's true of basically any country. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the UK Government to presume that France is safe, and therefore that an asylum seeker who is in France and has the opportunity to claim asylum there but chooses not to is probably abusing the system.

So, what if larger ships travelled from elsewhere in the world (from an unsafe country), and then transferred their ‘migrant’ passengers into small boats to land in say, Scotland.

As the U.K. would be the first place that they could claim asylum, even if they wanted to go elsewhere to claim asylum, under your ideas, the U.K. would have to accept them all.

If the people making money out of people who are desperate for a better life were to cotton on to this, thousands could come by this route every month.

The quickest and cheapest way of sorting out this mess, is to spend money improving and making the existing system fairer (by removing unreasonable restrictions) and encourage people to use this legal route. Also to fund it properly.

The idea that the U.K. can actually be effective at keeping small boats from coming here is in the same category as trying to hold the sea back. We have never been able to fully protect our coastline from people travelling here. Not without spending extremely large sums of money on it. Money that government will never allocate.

If you are being persecuted and therefore need to flee your country, then it is reasonable for you to find whichever safe country you can most easily get to and claim asylum there. But that should not give you the right to roam the World picking and choosing which country you think you'd like to live in. After all, noone else has that right.

Why should someone who is fleeing not be able to choose which country they want to settle in?

If I want to settle somewhere else in the world, I have a choice of where I want to go. Of course, I may have to jump through some hoops to get permission from the country I want to go and live in.

 

[REVUpminster]

By using the taxes generated by the additional economic activity that those people facilitate to pay for houses, schools, the NHS and welfare services.

It is physically impossible to build the housing and other facilities even if all the migrants were bricklayers. Would these migrants be working in jobs that they would earn enough money to pay taxes or would they receive state payments to make their money up.

 

[Annetts key]

It is physically impossible to build the housing and other facilities even if all the migrants were bricklayers. Would these migrants be working in jobs that they would earn enough money to pay taxes or would they receive state payments to make their money up.

If you are so concerned about population increase, are you also going to suggest a one child per family policy as well? A significant proportion of our population growth has been due to our own population increasing. As well as children, people living longer is having an effect.

Also what about further increasing the state pension age as well, so that, you know, less people live to receive it.

The fact is, that the population is increasing in France as well as in the U.K.

There is plenty of room in the U.K., the biggest problem being that the government is not encouraging investment in the parts of the country where there is plenty of space.

Also, how many people have second homes or holiday homes? And how many older people are living in homes where only one bedroom is in use in a large house?

IMHO it’s about time Westminster lost a large number of powers, and instead these powers should be devolved to the regions. Along with the money that otherwise would have been spent by Westminster.

Oh, and about bricklayers, we have the technology to build homes, offices or other buildings without using any bricks whatsoever.

 

[Howardh]

Our population might decrease if we were allowed to work, live and retire in the EU just like we could in the good old days.

 

[brad465]

We allow population growth to continue, whether from domestic births, EU migration or migration from anywhere else because we have a pyramid scheme economic model: where an increasing number need to come in at the bottom to support those at the top. The bottom are most workers, the top are the wealthiest and/or retired folk.

Therefore if you are someone who is opposed to freedom of movement, or any other form of immigration, just scathing the numbers/policy is not going deep enough into the core matter, you have to look at the wider system and demand other solutions. That could be demanding we stop boosting GDP constantly, it could be turbo charging investment into innovation for advanced tech/automation, or any other related solution. Whatever the best way forward is, no government nor most of the private sector seems to be doing anything remotely necessary to solve this pyramid scheme, and if nothing is done, wait until "peak human" arrives and countries might actually start having wars over migrant workers (which would potentially be ironic), and/or face a complete economic meltdown.

 

[Enthusiast]

For the umpteenth time: there is no moral or legal requirement for a person to seek asylum in any particular country that they may pass through.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees suggests otherwise (as written). Unfortunately the UN has unilaterally declared that it does not mean what it says. But instead of challenging that stance the signatories just seem to have said "Oh, alright then."

And how many older people are living in homes where only one bedroom is in use in a large house?

Mrs Enthusiast and I are two older people living in such a house (which we own and in which we have lived for more than forty years). We like it - immensely. Are you suggesting that in order to accommodate incomers (either directly or indirectly) that we move into a pokey bedsit so that someone else can enjoy our four bedrooms and large garden? Before we leave, are we to be paid the going rate for it, or should we consider giving it away?

Of course one of the main reasons asylum seekers come to Britain is because we have a limited return agreement with France, something which is definitely a Brexit consequence.

Of course the "Dublin Agreement" which we "enjoyed" prior to Brexit worked a treat:

Transfers of asylum seekers from the UK under the Dublin system

1. The Government stated in the Immigration White Paper (p.18) that they intend to seek to participate in the Dublin Regulation after Brexit. This agreement, which has been touted as a boon to the UK because it includes a provision on returning asylum seekers to their EU country of first...

www.migrationwatchuk.org

"This agreement, which has been touted as a boon to the UK because it includes a provision on returning asylum seekers to their EU country of first arrival, has been of very little benefit to Britain in this respect. It is not worth continuing to participate."

"The effectiveness of the system from the UK’s point of view has declined dramatically in recent years. Home Office statistics reveal that, while there were a total of 676 returns of asylum seekers from the UK to other European countries under the rules in 2016 and 2017, 1,019 asylum seekers were transferred to the UK. The figures reveal that the balance has shifted since 2015, when 131 people were transferred to the UK, against 510 people who transferred out."

 

[AlterEgo]

You do realise the Dublin Agreement was a pretty unpopular scheme among traffickers and refugees, and acted as a deterrent? How’s leaving the agreement worked out for the UK since 2019? Have there been more, or fewer, traffickers using dangerous methods to enter the UK?

 

[Enthusiast]

Our population might decrease if we were allowed to work, live and retire in the EU just like we could in the good old days.

So basically then, we simply swap the people already here and who have lived here for most of their lives, with those queuing up in Calais for a seat in a rubber boat?

 

[REVUpminster]

One person living in a four bedroom house is where council housing went wrong as that person is possibly a widow/er who's children have moved out and they have no incentive to downsize to a one bedroom council flat which they probably started out in when first married. Maybe councils should have legal agreements with tenants that they only occupy a property that the council deem is all they require.

 

[najaB]

Would these migrants be working in jobs that they would earn enough money to pay taxes or would they receive state payments to make their money up.

More than likely they would be working in jobs and paying taxes. EU migrants were net contributors to the UK treasury.

European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK.

The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK

European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK.

www.oxfordeconomics.com

 

[Howardh]

So basically then, we simply swap the people already here and who have lived here for most of their lives, with those queuing up in Calais for a seat in a rubber boat?

People who are already here might want to work, or like myself, want to retire in the EU, thus freeing up space for anyone you like to fill.

 

[najaB]

Article 31 of the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees suggests otherwise (as written). Unfortunately the UN has unilaterally declared that it does not mean what it says. But instead of challenging that stance the signatories just seem to have said "Oh, alright then."

To quote the article:

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country

I'm not sure where or how that says there is an obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first 'safe country' that they pass through.

 

[JamesT]

To quote the article:

I'm not sure where or how that says there is an obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first 'safe country' that they pass through.

The implication as I read it is that countries have no obligation to hear asylum claims from refugees who have not come directly from a country where they are threatened. Therefore an asylum seeker needs to claim in the first safe country they reach as that is the only on they’re guaranteed to be heard in.

 

[najaB]

The implication as I read it is that countries have no obligation to hear asylum claims from refugees who have not come directly from a country where they are threatened.

I don't get that interpretation. I read it as saying that the Contracting State cannot punish or penalise someone specifically for the act of entering the country illegally if they have come directly from an 'unsafe country'. Even if you want to argue that they haven't come 'directly'* from an unsafe country, it doesn't say that they must claim asylum in the first safe country they pass through.

Note that 'direct' and 'without transiting' don't have the same meaning in general use. For example, many airlines class a flight as 'direct' even if it involves a stopover in an intermediate country if you don't have to disembark and/or change planes. The analogy would be that coming directly from a place of danger to the UK could involve passing through another safe country, as long as any stop in that country was simply to sleep/eat/wait for transportation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Our population might decrease if we were allowed to work, live and retire in the EU just like we could in the good old days.

You mean like, when we were in the EU and the UK population was decreasing because vastly more British people were using FOM to move to Europe than Europeans were coming the other way? Oh, hang on...

 

[class ep-09]

You mean like, when we were in the EU and the UK population was decreasing because vastly more British people were using FOM to move to Europe than Europeans were coming the other way? Oh, hang on...

FOM has ended for UK citizens , it has not ended for EU’s .
They still have 27 other countries to choose from .
UK has 1 .

Besides being the first country that imposed sanctions on itself , UK made more difficult for its people to go to the places abroad , where was majority wanted to go , that is EU.

Cutting red tape my a…se .


On another note ….

Predicted 0.08% boost from UK-Asia trade deal could be overestimate

Trade department used different approach to estimating economic boost which ‘generates larger estimated GDP impacts’

www.independent.co.uk

Who would have thought ..

 

[JamesT]

I don't get that interpretation. I read it as saying that the Contracting State cannot punish or penalise someone specifically for the act of entering the country illegally if they have come directly from an 'unsafe country'. Even if you want to argue that they haven't come 'directly'* from an unsafe country, it doesn't say that they must claim asylum in the first safe country they pass through.

Note that 'direct' and 'without transiting' don't have the same meaning in general use. For example, many airlines class a flight as 'direct' even if it involves a stopover in an intermediate country if you don't have to disembark and/or change planes. The analogy would be that coming directly from a place of danger to the UK could involve passing through another safe country, as long as any stop in that country was simply to sleep/eat/wait for transportation.

That’s the direct meaning of the article. But the implied meaning of you can’t punish someone who comes directly, is that you can punish someone who comes indirectly.
You may not agree with that interpretation, but I assume you can understand its logic? It’s not a new thing https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publicatio...um-europe-protection-protection-refugees.html mentions

All countries having land borders with Germany are thus deemed “safe” with the result that no asylum-seeker entering Germany overland after 1 July 1993 should have access to protection in Germany.

Which is exactly the same basis for the UK’s policy.