Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph · 16-09-2017 07:57PM

"Also, the single market in services barely exists, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Many EU nations refuse to drop barriers to imports of certain services – which severely penalises the UK, the world’s second-largest services exporter."

Interesting take on things! So the authors accept that the UK is heavily reliant on services but reckons sure the UK is barely selling any into the SM as is so not selling any at all will make no difference.

The rest of the article is nothing we haven't heard before.

murphaph · 16-09-2017 07:58PM

Calina wrote: »

You do not appear to have provided a link to said article.

He did.

Calina · 16-09-2017 08:10PM

Strangely it isnt rendering on the mobile UI for me although I can see a URL tag if I attempted to quote him.

I will have a look when I am at a full browser.

Enzokk · 16-09-2017 08:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I came across an excellent article in The Telegraph by two economists explaining the economic benefits of leaving the single market and the customs union. It could be a good starting point for discussing this properly.

It's a much much better articulation of some of the reasons I've highlighted already on this thread.

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

The article seems to want to blame the EU a little too much for my liking. Its almost like they think the UK has not been part of the EU but has been forced to participate in the rules only for trade, like Norway, instead of having a seat at the table as they have had for the past 50 or so years. Is that the way you perceive the relationship as well?

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2017 08:27PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Feel free to read the article and see what is said about it in the article and we can use that as a springboard for discussion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is no evidence that the EU is biased in favour of France and Germany as you claimed. I'd like you to respond to that.

solodeogloria · 16-09-2017 08:34PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is no evidence that the EU is biased in favour of France and Germany as you claimed. I'd like you to respond to that.

Good evening!

I claimed that the article raises these points. You can read the article and see what it says. You can see that in the first three words of what you quoted originally.

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

Feel free to read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2017 08:55PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I claimed that the article raises these points. You can read the article and see what it says. You can see that in the first three words of what you quoted originally.

Feel free to read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So the article makes a claim and provides nothing whatsoever to back it up basically. Unless you've got some sort of evidence then that can be dismissed.

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2017 09:07PM

To provide a more holistic opinion of the article, I found it quite confused and derivative. It's much of the same arguments we've heard before. The referendum is done so that doesn't interest me at the moment. However, it makes a big deal of the fact that non-EU trade outweighs EU trade. Then it says that tariffs aren't a big deal. Finally, it says that that French farmers and wine producers won't want tariffs? I thought these were no big deal. Especially when you consider that over 50% of British trade is done outside the EU27. If the customs union was truly such a burdensome construct, why is this the case?

And that's before we get to the unproven assumptions that we're just supposed to take as fact like:

The economic benefits of single market “membership” are, anyway, wildly overstated and may even be negative. Membership means all UK firms – including the 95pc that don’t export to the EU – must comply with often unnecessary and expensive EU rules.

Freedom of movement rules provide big firms with a ready stream of cheap, easily exploitable labour, while suppressing the wages of the UK’s most financially insecure workers.

The above are just unsourced, sensationalist claims. I don't really get the point given that Leave won the referendum and negotiations are well underway.

Britain benefits from powerful EU business lobbies urging their governments to strike a favourable UK trade deal, knowing they’ll otherwise face reciprocated WTO tariffs.

Trading under WTO rules is often portrayed as a disaster. Yet most trade across the globe is conducted largely under WTO rules. The US and other leading economies trade with the EU on this basis, with each side paying tariffs that are generally very low. As such, it is by no means essential for the UK to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU ahead of March 2019. Failing to grasp this amounts to a major strategic error.

Tariffs are significant or they aren't. I wish the authors would pick one. Maybe Michael Gove was right. These so-called experts at least have proven to be quite unimpressive.

Lemming · 16-09-2017 09:15PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

No matter your POV on Brexit or Johnson, you should be able to recognise this is a power play from a man who has clearly got restless waiting for May to fall on her sword.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

With May supposedly announcing in Florence a somewhat softening in her position, including the possibility of staying in the single market/customs union for a transition period, it seems clear that Johnson is just positioning himself for a leadership heave.

This isn't so much BoJo making a power play for a leadership heave, and more a warning shot across the bow for May a few days before she goes to Florence. BoJo is clearly feeling the heat and knows that he's going to take the blame should the UK's stance soften.

Edit: So how about answering those questions from earlier solo? Hiding behind a Telegraph article doesn't answer anything I'm afraid. F for effort I'm afraid.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-09-2017 09:44PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I came across an excellent article in The Telegraph by two economists explaining the economic benefits of leaving the single market and the customs union. It could be a good starting point for discussing this properly.

I'll try to explain this to you again again.

An FTA usually doesn't cover all trade and it usually doesn't come into effect now.

The Swiss-Chinese discussions started in 2007, before serious talks in 2011 and was signed in 2013 and came into force in 2014 and for some sections of Swiss exports to China the full tariff reductions won't kick in until 2029, and for others not even then.

Imagine telling UK small firms that "if we start negotiations with China next year, most of you will have tariff free export to China by 2040", it's not like the Chinese have unskilled over the last 22 years is it ?

It's also one-sided as the remaining Swiss tariffs on Chinese imports were removed. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/free-trade-agreement_china-opens-up-to-swiss-exporters/37462288

The small business federation notes that 44% of the volume of machine tools will not benefit from any exemption. “This means in particular high-precision tools,” says spokesman Philippe Cordonier.
...
Swiss agriculture’s flagship export item will not benefit from any great breaks. “Tariff barriers for cheese will only be gradually cut by a half in ten years,” Röösli notes.

Blessed are the cheesemakers :rolleyes:

View · 16-09-2017 10:05PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

View wrote: »

Parliament made a choice NOT to act on the majority view in the 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland.

As such it is clear that Parliament is perfectly willing to ignore majority opinion in an advisory referendum when it suits itself.

Parliament didnt ignore anything, the criteria was not met.

A majority voted in favour of a proposal in an advisory referendum. Parliament didn't implement the proposal that the majority voted in favour of thus ignoring the advice of the electorate. Therefore it is clearly bogus to argue that Parliament can't ignore the wishes of a majority in an advisory referendum when it so chooses.

View · 16-09-2017 10:27PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

View wrote: »

So, if you asked someone for advice and they advised you to give them all your money and to do so for the rest of your life, you'd regard their advice as being a binding instruction that you must follow, right? :-)

But of an irrelevant and silly anology

Not at all. If you regard advice as something you can either act or not as you so choose then the advice you get from an advisory referendum is not and cannot ever be binding.

tomwaterford wrote: »

But still can't see how anyone can call themselves democratic and be in favour of ignoring election/referendum results what don't suit them

An advisory referendum is one in which it is optional to act upon the result or not. It is not binding. Were it binding it would not be an advisory referendum.

You seem to be arguing that a democracy can never hold an advisory referendum even if they make a democratic decision to have one. And yet, they are widely used by democracies around the world.

tomwaterford wrote: »

By all means dictatorship is a valid political opionn as any other,just it's been rejected around the world

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with a democracy holding an advisory referendum.

Rain Ascending · 16-09-2017 10:55PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think there will be movement on the money issue next week. There's a lot of anticipation in respect to Theresa May's speech in Florence next week. According to the Financial Times Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Treasury have left aside funds for the possibility of contributions until 2021. Three years after Brexit. I think this funding will be used. I think Whitehall has known this for some time too. However the UK is going to insist that this is a contribution for single market access. That's the only way they can put this to the British public. They are obviously going to tie the payment to transition otherwise it is unsellable. The UK needs to get something out of this. I suspect they will.

This is a very feasible scenario up to a point.

I can see the EU agreeing to single market access in a transition arrangement. The departure from that arrangement would be in line with the end of the EU budgetary cycle and hence line up with the end of a lot of the UK's residual commitments. The UK may be able to negotiate a few face-saving concessions (e.g. the right to commence negotiations for free-trade agreements during the transition period) to make it more politically palatable.

But, here's the tricky bit. The UK would have to continue to sign up to the principal of free movement for that single market access. Politically, the EU cannot change the rules on this for the UK. And politically, I doubt the current Conservative government will agree to freedom of movement lasting beyond March 2019.

So deadlock on the divorce payment?

Either the Conservative government can figure out a transition model that (a) they can agree to among themselves and (b) that would fit into a model that is familiar to the EU ... or ... we have another general election in the UK. If we get to deadlock before the end of this year, the pressures on May's minority government will become unmanageable inside the House of Commons in 2018.

View · 16-09-2017 11:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

That common travel area with Britain that Britain unilaterally voted to leave last year?
Ireland always wanted to be part of Shengen but couldn't because of the UK. Now that the border is back, Ireland can focus on EU integration without the UK holding us back.

Good afternoon!

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

This is incorrect.

The first formal mention of the CTA in an international treaty was in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Even there it just gets a brief mention in Protocol 20 (the Schengen opt-out one). As such the court that gets to decide future cases in relation to it is the CJEU and if they rule that it is incompatible with EU law, then that's the end of it.

And, no, it doesn't matter what the UK promises as the UK is fully aware that, under EU law, it has no legal authority whatsoever to make promises about how EU law will or will not be applied.

Obvious Otter · 17-09-2017 01:02AM

I think the ineptitude of this grand delusion can be seen in BoJo's incredible Telegraph article. It's amazing that this guy has any political capital left at all.

May has no control of her party and the Leavers expect this government to deliver a competent Brexit deal, which ironically wants a seamless trade barrier despite cancelling all EU customs, Revenue and Duty secondments. The biggest barriers to trade expansion in the EU has always been the UK. All these countries that the UK plan to trade with are still going to have the same demands as they did with the EU. The Etonian logic of offering shiny things to people with 'Watermelon smiles' doesn't really cut it these days.

solodeogloria · 17-09-2017 06:52AM

View wrote: »

This is incorrect.

The first formal mention of the CTA in an international treaty was in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Even there it just gets a brief mention in Protocol 20 (the Schengen opt-out one). As such the court that gets to decide future cases in relation to it is the CJEU and if they rule that it is incompatible with EU law, then that's the end of it.

And, no, it doesn't matter what the UK promises as the UK is fully aware that, under EU law, it has no legal authority whatsoever to make promises about how EU law will or will not be applied.

Good morning!

This is pedantry. The arrangements existed before the EU even if they weren't referred to by this title. Free movement existed between Ireland and Britain since the early 1920's. This wasn't dependent on the EU.

Ireland's position in UK law is based on the Republic of Ireland Act which dealt with the implications in UK law for Ireland ceasing to be a crown dominion.

This act is also the reason why Irish citizens have more rights in the UK than other EU citizens.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

This is a very feasible scenario up to a point.

I can see the EU agreeing to single market access in a transition arrangement. The departure from that arrangement would be in line with the end of the EU budgetary cycle and hence line up with the end of a lot of the UK's residual commitments. The UK may be able to negotiate a few face-saving concessions (e.g. the right to commence negotiations for free-trade agreements during the transition period) to make it more politically palatable.

But, here's the tricky bit. The UK would have to continue to sign up to the principal of free movement for that single market access. Politically, the EU cannot change the rules on this for the UK. And politically, I doubt the current Conservative government will agree to freedom of movement lasting beyond March 2019.

So deadlock on the divorce payment?

Either the Conservative government can figure out a transition model that (a) they can agree to among themselves and (b) that would fit into a model that is familiar to the EU ... or ... we have another general election in the UK. If we get to deadlock before the end of this year, the pressures on May's minority government will become unmanageable inside the House of Commons in 2018.

The free movement issue is addressed to a degree in the UK's proposals. After 2019 people will be able to enter for a transitional period. If they haven't accrued 5 years of residence after the transitional period they will need to apply for a visa because they won't be eligible for "settled status".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 17-09-2017 07:23AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The free movement issue is addressed to a degree in the UK's proposals. After 2019 people will be able to enter for a transitional period. If they haven't accrued 5 years of residence after the transitional period they will need to apply for a visa because they won't be eligible for "settled status".

But the UK wants to continue the CTA, so how do you police who comes into the country? You will not need a visa to get into the UK if you continue the CTA.

solodeogloria · 17-09-2017 07:33AM

Enzokk wrote: »

But the UK wants to continue the CTA, so how do you police who comes into the country? You will not need a visa to get into the UK if you continue the CTA.

Good morning!

I suggest you read the Government's proposals. I've also raised this on this thread before I'm fairly sure. We should try avoid repetition.

After Brexit they aren't insisting on restricting travel. Visa free travel for EU citizens will continue.

Rights to employment on the other hand will not. This will be enforced primarily through employment checks.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 17-09-2017 07:57AM

In other words the UK is outsourcing checks to employers and landlords.

Enforcement will be thin.

Enzokk · 17-09-2017 08:27AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suggest you read the Government's proposals. I've also raised this on this thread before I'm fairly sure. We should try avoid repetition.

After Brexit they aren't insisting on restricting travel. Visa free travel for EU citizens will continue.

Rights to employment on the other hand will not. This will be enforced primarily through employment checks.

It seems that immigration from the EU has not depressed wages and the real reason for people being paid less is the GFC and recession. It also seems that non-EU immigration could be detrimental to UK-born workers. And what immigration does the government actually control?

I would guess that people coming into the UK to work illegally will actually depress wages and work as they would work for cash and not pay taxes. Those people that want to do that will be able to come to the UK via Ireland if the UK continues the CTA.

I know this may be difficult for you to answer as you voted to remain, but for someone that has concerns about immigration, what do you think they will feel about an open door via Ireland?

I would think the best way to control immigration is at the first point, the border. If you outsource that to another agency then surely you open the system to abuse if there is an open door.

I am just trying to figure out the policies of the UK and if it makes sense. At the moment it doesn't to me and your referral to the position of the UK on any questions doesn't clear up the confusion. You have decided to defend the position of the UK government so unfortunately you will be questioned on their policies and if you think it makes sense.

The Labour Market Effects of Immigration

kevthegaff · 17-09-2017 10:55AM

Ryanair could do very well if ireland is a gateway into Britain. .

murphaph · 17-09-2017 01:11PM

Calina wrote: »

In other words the UK is outsourcing checks to employers and landlords.

Enforcement will be thin.

The black economy will be rife. It'll also be very difficult to tell naturalised EU apart from illegals because there's no compulsion for British citizens to carry ID cards. What an almighty mess.

solodeogloria · 17-09-2017 03:24PM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems that immigration from the EU has not depressed wages and the real reason for people being paid less is the GFC and recession. It also seems that non-EU immigration could be detrimental to UK-born workers. And what immigration does the government actually control?

I would guess that people coming into the UK to work illegally will actually depress wages and work as they would work for cash and not pay taxes. Those people that want to do that will be able to come to the UK via Ireland if the UK continues the CTA.

I know this may be difficult for you to answer as you voted to remain, but for someone that has concerns about immigration, what do you think they will feel about an open door via Ireland?

I would think the best way to control immigration is at the first point, the border. If you outsource that to another agency then surely you open the system to abuse if there is an open door.

I am just trying to figure out the policies of the UK and if it makes sense. At the moment it doesn't to me and your referral to the position of the UK on any questions doesn't clear up the confusion. You have decided to defend the position of the UK government so unfortunately you will be questioned on their policies and if you think it makes sense.

The Labour Market Effects of Immigration

Good afternoon!

A few (quick) observations.

Firstly - It isn't reasonable to equate non-EU migration with EU migration. Non-EU migration is far stricter and is typically time bound and based on skills and earnings. There is no Tier 3 visa for unskilled workers for non-EU migrants. Non-EU migration into the United Kingdom is therefore different to EU migration into the United Kingdom which isn't bound on skills, earnings or time bound. Non-EU migration is inherently different for these reasons.

Secondly - it isn't true that people have said there is no impact on wages. There is some impact on wages, but it isn't the most significant and it by and large affects low skilled labour. This tends to be a blind spot for middle class people (myself included) in this debate, but the Government must be a Government for all irrespective of social class or type of employment. This is the only type of labour that I think needs to be controlled in terms of quotas to protect the British labour market. Most on countries around the world apply these forms of controls, and there is no reason why it would be wrong to do so in the case of the United Kingdom.

Thirdly - there is already the possibility of illegal non-EU migration through the Irish border today. This is an issue, but it is an issue that the UK Border Force are able to deal with. The UK Government are happy to keep the status quo in this regard even at the risk of illegal EU migration. Employers are obliged to report cases of illegal migration and can be (and are) shut down in the event of illegal hiring practices. Post-Brexit if there is visa-free EU travel into the United Kingdom anyway then the Irish border is no more porous than any other point of entry from the rest of the EU. Or indeed, there are the same risks as other countries who travel on a visa-free waiver such as Australia or the United States.

Finally - Controlling the United Kingdom's border is a matter for the UK Government, not a matter for the European Union post-Brexit. If the UK Government are happy with this arrangement and in how they are policing this, this is a matter of their own choice.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86 · 17-09-2017 03:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Finally - Controlling the United Kingdom's border is a matter for the UK Government, not a matter for the European Union post-Brexit. If the UK Government are happy with this arrangement and in how they are policing this, this is a matter of their own choice.

Surely in the interests of consistency, it should be a matter of the British public's choice and not the governments?

And in either instance, what if opinion (either now or in future) was for immigration laws to be more lax than the EU in certain areas? Why should the EU have to adhere to this, which is what would by default be the case if the CTA between the UK and us down south in the EU to exist.

solodeogloria · 17-09-2017 04:02PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Surely in the interests of consistency, it should be a matter of the British public's choice and not the governments?

And in either instance, what if opinion (either now or in future) was for immigration laws to be more lax than the EU in certain areas? Why should the EU have to adhere to this, which is what would by default be the case if the CTA between the UK and us down south in the EU to exist.

Good evening!

Last point for today.

At present the British Government are implementing the result of the referendum. The British public will have the choice to vote for different parties with different immigration policies in subsequent elections. Brexit allows for immigration policy decisions to be made in Westminster. So in theory if in the future the people expressed a wish for a more liberal immigration policy this could be implemented in much the same way as if people wished for a tighter immigration policy. This would be no longer subject to Brussels in the way that it is now. This is what I mean when I say "take back control". It means being able to make decisions that affect the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.

As for the Republic of Ireland and its immigration laws, that is a matter for the Republic. The Republic of Ireland however cannot dictate to the United Kingdom on which basis it wants to permit people entry into the United Kingdom. Ireland could choose to leave the Common Travel Area and join Schengen, if that is the case that is their sovereign decision. It doesn't affect immigration policy in the United Kingdom however - it can continue to permit travel from the EU into the United Kingdom either through the land border or by any other frontier.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86 · 17-09-2017 04:09PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last point for today.

At present the British Government are implementing the result of the referendum. The British public will have the choice to vote for different parties with different immigration policies in subsequent elections. Brexit allows for immigration policy decisions to be made in Westminster. So in theory if in the future the people expressed a wish for a more liberal immigration policy this could be implemented in much the same way as if people wished for a tighter immigration policy. This would be no longer subject to Brussels in the way that it is now. This is what I mean when I say "take back control". It means being able to make decisions that affect the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.

As for the Republic of Ireland and its immigration laws, that is a matter for the Republic. The Republic of Ireland however cannot dictate to the United Kingdom on which basis it wants to permit people entry into the United Kingdom. Ireland could choose to leave the Common Travel Area and join Schengen, if that is the case that is their sovereign decision. It doesn't affect immigration policy in the United Kingdom however - it can continue to permit travel from the EU into the United Kingdom either through the land border or by any other frontier.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is not a matter for the Republic, it is a matter for the entire EU - including Ireland. Which means the UK's immigration laws would not be able to be more lax on any front than the EU's -either now or at any point in the future- if it were to want to keep the CTA in place, and so the UK's immigration policy remains partially dictated by the EU.

Enzokk · 17-09-2017 04:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - it isn't true that people have said there is no impact on wages. There is some impact on wages, but it isn't the most significant and it by and large affects low skilled labour. This tends to be a blind spot for middle class people (myself included) in this debate, but the Government must be a Government for all irrespective of social class or type of employment. This is the only type of labour that I think needs to be controlled in terms of quotas to protect the British labour market. Most on countries around the world apply these forms of controls, and there is no reason why it would be wrong to do so in the case of the United Kingdom.

Did you see the link I provided? It seems that non-EU workers seem to have an effect on lower wages and not low skilled workers from the EU. As you yourself point out in your first point, non-EU immigration is skilled work and that is where there is lower wages. In fact the only people that suffer from lower wages are EU workers, from other EU workers. The effect on British born workers isn't that big at all from EU workers.

So if you think the government needs to act to ensure that incoming labour doesn't affect the people that voted for Brexit, then they should start limiting non-EU immigration. EU workers seems mostly to be minimum wage workers who just replace other minimum wage workers. EU workers have less effect on wages than non-EU immigration.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - there is already the possibility of illegal non-EU migration through the Irish border today. This is an issue, but it is an issue that the UK Border Force are able to deal with. The UK Government are happy to keep the status quo in this regard even at the risk of illegal EU migration. Employers are obliged to report cases of illegal migration and can be (and are) shut down in the event of illegal hiring practices. Post-Brexit if there is visa-free EU travel into the United Kingdom anyway then the Irish border is no more porous than any other point of entry from the rest of the EU. Or indeed, there are the same risks as other countries who travel on a visa-free waiver such as Australia or the United States.

But someone from Thailand or India still has to apply for a visa to Ireland before they can go to the UK via Ireland. So there is still an application needed and I think that in a way is a system for the UK and Ireland to control who comes in to their countries. Even if someone comes to Ireland and wants to go to the UK in most instances they need to be checked before a visa is issued.

When the UK leaves the EU then there is no checks on who comes into Ireland from the EU. This is why people voted to leave, to get back control of their immigration system. By still allowing the CTA you still do not have control of immigration as EU citizens can still go to the UK without border check actually. Do you see that as a problem or not?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Finally - Controlling the United Kingdom's border is a matter for the UK Government, not a matter for the European Union post-Brexit. If the UK Government are happy with this arrangement and in how they are policing this, this is a matter of their own choice.

Agreed, but if your definition of taking back control of your borders is still allowing EU citizens to enter the UK without any checks it seems like a waste of time to be honest.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Last point for today.

At present the British Government are implementing the result of the referendum. The British public will have the choice to vote for different parties with different immigration policies in subsequent elections. Brexit allows for immigration policy decisions to be made in Westminster. So in theory if in the future the people expressed a wish for a more liberal immigration policy this could be implemented in much the same way as if people wished for a tighter immigration policy. This would be no longer subject to Brussels in the way that it is now. This is what I mean when I say "take back control". It means being able to make decisions that affect the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.

As for the Republic of Ireland and its immigration laws, that is a matter for the Republic. The Republic of Ireland however cannot dictate to the United Kingdom on which basis it wants to permit people entry into the United Kingdom. Ireland could choose to leave the Common Travel Area and join Schengen, if that is the case that is their sovereign decision. It doesn't affect immigration policy in the United Kingdom however - it can continue to permit travel from the EU into the United Kingdom either through the land border or by any other frontier.

But if there is a CTA then there needs to be some sort of dialogue between the two countries where the CTA applies. If Ireland decides to join the Schengen scheme but there is till an open border between Ireland and the UK, that seems to be taking control away as you are giving control to the EU countries. That seems very counter-intuitive, right?

I cannot see how the UK can want to control their borders and promise to have the CTA. Unless their solution is for Ireland to leave the EU as well.

solodeogloria · 17-09-2017 04:42PM

Billy86 wrote: »

It is not a matter for the Republic, it is a matter for the entire EU - including Ireland. Which means the UK's immigration laws would not be able to be more lax on any front than the EU's -either now or at any point in the future- if it were to want to keep the CTA in place, and so the UK's immigration policy remains partially dictated by the EU.

Good evening!

I said my last post would be the last post for today. I need to clarify this however.

Ireland isn't a member of the Schengen zone so it is entitled to have control over non-EU immigration on its own terms. Border checks occur on the external border of the Schengen zone. Ireland isn't a member.

If someone enters Ireland without a visa then they can be deported and vice versa in respect to the United Kingdom.

The EU won't have a say in respect to who enters the United Kingdom and on what terms they enter.

Edit: Enzokk you've missed my point about non-EU migration. My point is that it is skilled and there are wage thresholds. This means that it doesn't have the same impact as low skilled migration from the EU with no wage controls whatsoever. The point is that non-EU immigration is on time restricted visas. If non-EU migrants are here it is because they have been through tough checks to show that they won't have a negative impact on the UK labour market. They will leave if their visa runs out. The same isn't true for low skilled migration from the EU. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 17-09-2017 04:47PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU won't have a say in respect to who enters the United Kingdom and on what terms they enter.

But they will, if the CTA is continued. Do you not see this? If a person is a EU citizen they can enter the UK via the CTA, even when the UK stops the free movement of people.

briany · 17-09-2017 05:06PM

Just looking at Julia Hartley-Brewer giving some 'Democracy' chat to Will Self on Question Time, there.

"If you believe in democracy, you accept the outcome of democratic votes.", she said.

Pretty nonsensical. Why? Because if you take a general election as another example of democracy, especially where one side wins narrowly, and then that government is found to be suspect, if a scandal breaks out about, a motion can be made to dissolve that government and elect a new one. There's no-one saying, "We've been elected, so we're here for [term limit], and that's that." Using 'democracy' as a way to quash any question of another vote seems to undermine the whole idea.

Probably why it's wise to have a referendum requiring a 2/3rds majority, because you avoid the scenario of potentially pitting one half of the public against the other, which is exactly what the Brexit vote has appeared to do. You instead get change when there is strong and overwhelming public opinion, not the scenario where a million and a half people change their minds and suddenly the outcome is different. But if the British want to base an apparently irreversible decision on such a slim majority, then let them at it, but I find it to be madness.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments