Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell wrote:

You are asking why the EU would not allow FOM from non-EU members - well they would have no intention of ever offering it. Why would they?

I think the eskimo is struggling to find straws to clutch amidst the snow of his own confusion.

Sky King

I didn't see any juicy revelations really. Just him calling northerners 'monkeys' and some comments about Jews that weren't in the best taste, but that's all.

Stop moaning ffs

So Aaron banks phone has been hacked and some huge revelations.

#aaronbanksleaks is trending on twitter.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is precisely why it makes no sense for the UK to have uncontrolled migration from the EU.

That's why I asked the question. It's to shine the spotlight on the potential negative effects of mass migration.

The reason, in my hypothetical, that some posters refused to engage is because they're unwilling to admit that uncontrolled mass migration can be negative. I'm glad you pointed out that uncontrolled mass migration can be incredibly damaging. Controls are needed.

One poster earlier claimed that UK freedom of movement should be extended - by and large - to the rest of the world. Not one poster (except me) pointed out the flaws in that position.

You are selectively quoting from my post.

Migration within the EU is part of a package of freedoms. uncontrolled migration does not exist separate from those other freedoms, and of itself is not without some restrictions.

You are asking why the EU would not allow FOM from non-EU members - well they would have no intention of ever offering it. Why would they?

URL="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers"]Source[/URL

eskimohunt wrote:

The reason, in my hypothetical, that some posters refused to engage is because they're unwilling to admit that uncontrolled mass migration can be negative. I'm glad you pointed out that uncontrolled mass migration can be incredibly damaging. Controls are needed.

Intra EU migration is neither uncontrolled or mass. All EU member states meet a set of political, economic and governance standards. All are part of EU wide programmes to achieve closer convergence and closer collaboration in both public and private sectors. All operate within agreed and shared guidelines.

No such conditions apply to non EU immigration and nobody in this forum or anywhere else I've seen has proposed it should be unregulated.

Intra EU migration has been carefully monitored and assessed. It is overwhelmingly beneficial on all levels but you are cordially invited to provide examples of damage incurred in ANY member state of the EU from migration between members.

eskimohunt wrote:

One poster earlier claimed that UK freedom of movement should be extended - by and large - to the rest of the world. Not one poster (except me) pointed out the flaws in that position.

I've not seen any such argument, which in any case has nothing to do with Brexit.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you at least willing to answer my question of whether you think it would be a positive event for the EU to have a common travel area with India, Pakistan, and China? If not, why not.

You're at it again. You've been asked a question relating to the current negative impact of Brexit on the employment of EU migrants in the UK (with consequential effect on the provision of services and the supply of food) ... and instead of answering that question, you scoot off again into something that is entirely outside the scope of Brexit.

I have views on worldwide migration that I'm quite happy to discuss with you in another thread, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.

So you first: the door is open, and the "500 million" are leaving, not entering. Brexit will shut that door, stopping Brits from moving to the EU as easily has they have done up to now, but it seems that the British are more interested in drawing benefits than working and paying taxes, so the veg goes unpicked and the A&E patients go unseen.

Given that FoM has been an overall net benefit for the UK, how will removing it post-Brexit resolve the problems arising from current net emigration of EU citizens from the UK?

Dytalus

IAmTheReign wrote: »

We're not talking about uncontrolled mass migration from anywhere in the world though. We're talking about EU migration, since that is the only thing that will change post Brexit. And we don't need to talk about hypotheticals when we talk about EU migration. We have decades of hard evidence on which to make decisions. So I'll ask you again, have you any evidence whatsoever that FoM within the EU has had any negative consequences on people in the UK?

Also important to note that EU migration isn't uncontrolled. EU citizens living in Member States that are not their own can be returned home if they are not self-sufficient after 3 months.

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is precisely why it makes no sense for the UK to have uncontrolled migration from the EU.

That's why I asked the question. It's to shine the spotlight on the potential negative effects of mass migration.

The reason, in my hypothetical, that some posters refused to engage is because they're unwilling to admit that uncontrolled mass migration can be negative. I'm glad you pointed out that uncontrolled mass migration can be incredibly damaging. Controls are needed.

One poster earlier claimed that UK freedom of movement should be extended - by and large - to the rest of the world. Not one poster (except me) pointed out the flaws in that position.

We're not talking about uncontrolled mass migration from anywhere in the world though. We're talking about EU migration, since that is the only thing that will change post Brexit. And we don't need to talk about hypotheticals when we talk about EU migration. We have decades of hard evidence on which to make decisions. So I'll ask you again, have you any evidence whatsoever that FoM within the EU has had any negative consequences on people in the UK?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why on earth would the EU want a CTA with any non-member of the EU?

It makes no sense whatsoever for the EU to open its borders to uncontrolled migration as it would severely impact some member states by destabilising their current status for housing, health, education, social welfare and employment .

...which is precisely why it makes no sense for the UK to have uncontrolled migration from the EU.

That's why I asked the question. It's to shine the spotlight on the potential negative effects of mass migration.

The reason, in my hypothetical, that some posters refused to engage is because they're unwilling to admit that uncontrolled mass migration can be negative. I'm glad you pointed out that uncontrolled mass migration can be incredibly damaging. Controls are needed.

One poster earlier claimed that UK freedom of movement should be extended - by and large - to the rest of the world. Not one poster (except me) pointed out the flaws in that position.

Zubeneschamali

IAmTheReign wrote: »

What legitimate migratory reason? I asked you earlier why is FoM between the UK and Ireland fine but not between the UK and the rest of the EU? You said earlier EU migration had damaging economic consequences. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

In fairness, eskimohunt also said that he doesn't care about economic anything, so this is a red herring. He would support the UK taking an economic hit to regain control, even if the UK chose to let the exact same people enter before as afterwards, and there was no change in immigration at all.

It is the principle of the thing which is apparently worth tens of billions of pounds.

eskimohunt wrote:

Because you know, deep down, that your answer will end up, in some way or other, aligning with the reasons I've hitherto described.

Every member of the EU has control over non-EU immigration and each country exercises that control according to its needs (and in some cases post-colonial responsibilities.)

Some of that goes well, some doesn't. The Moroccan community in France, the Congolese community in Belgium, the Brazilian community in Portugal, the Ethiopian community in Italy (as well as the West Indian community in the UK) have more than the fair share of economic and social problems.

Migration within the EU has virtually no such issues. 99.99% is for economic betterment and all analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly to the benefit of the host countries.

eskimohunt wrote:

The hypothetical above exposes the frailty of the EU position on migration, and it shines a light, then, on the legitimate migratory reason on why the UK voted to Leave the European Union.

I realise that facts have little place in your argument but I suggest you look at the analysis of UK immigration and compare the impact of both EU and non-EU immigration on the UK economy. You will be better able to attribute frailty to the various arguments after that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because you know, deep down, that your answer will end up, in some way or other, aligning with the reasons I've hitherto described.

The hypothetical above exposes the frailty of the EU position on migration, and it shines a light, then, on the legitimate migratory reason on why the UK voted to Leave the European Union.

What legitimate migratory reason? I asked you earlier why is FoM between the UK and Ireland fine but not between the UK and the rest of the EU? You said earlier EU migration had damaging economic consequences. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

It's funny, if there was any evidence that FoM had been economically damaging to the UK like you claim it would be a totally legitimate reason to support leaving the EU. The fact that you've avoided providing any and are now deflecting by talking about uncontrolled migration from India speaks volumes.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you at least willing to answer my question of whether you think it would be a positive event for the EU to have a common travel area with India, Pakistan, and China? If not, why not.

Why on earth would the EU want a CTA with any non-member of the EU?

It makes no sense whatsoever for the EU to open its borders to uncontrolled migration as it would severely impact some member states by destabilising their current status for housing, health, education, social welfare and employment .

Freedom of movement is part of an overall package of freedoms - capital, labour, standards, services, and goods. FOM is only one of them.

DrumSteve

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Account showing as Suspended now.

Not surprised to be honest

A lot of people will be running for cover.

CelticRambler wrote: »

To use your own analogy of an "open door" - yes, the door is wide open (ignoring non-physical barriers like the UK being outside the Schengen Zone and requiring API of all incoming visitors) and ... and ... and ... well, the vast majority of those 500m have stayed where they are. What makes you think they'll suddenly up sticks and leave their successful economies next week, next month, or in the next year or two and move to the UK?

Are you at least willing to answer my question of whether you think it would be a positive event for the EU to have a common travel area with India, Pakistan, and China? If not, why not.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that we've had a common travel area with the UK for almost a century, and we can see that migration to either country is minimal over that prolonged period; it is managed well and integrated and has no damaging economic consequences.

Compare that with opening up the door to 500 million people, with a net figure of 300-400,000 (for some years) people moving to the UK.

You (GB) have had a common travel area with continental Europe for about 2000 years, and we've seen that migration is minimal over that prolonged period.

You (the UK) have had a common travel area with the EEC/EU for about 40 years, and although in some years migration was relatively high, it's currently running in negative figures ... with damaging economic and social consequences, as it is largely EU migrants who have left British fields and British hospitals. The natives don't want to work in the former and (apparently) aren't sufficiently qualified to work in the latter.

To use your own analogy of an "open door" - yes, the door is wide open (ignoring non-physical barriers like the UK being outside the Schengen Zone and requiring API of all incoming visitors) and ... and ... and ... well, the vast majority of those 500m have stayed where they are. What makes you think they'll suddenly up sticks and leave their successful economies next week, next month, or in the next year or two and move to the UK?

The only people making desperate attempts to enter the UK are Somalis, Afghans, Ethiopians, Syrians, etc, etc. In the meantime, the migrants who would most likely meet your criteria for "quality" are leaving because of Brexit. How can you argue in favour of something that is proven to be damaging to the UK when the previous situation was proven to respond to your objectives?

Quin_Dub

J Mysterio wrote: »

Arron Banks Twitter account has been hacked. The hackee has made available all his PMs and such for download from his account. lol!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Arron_banks

DrumSteve wrote: »

Only briefly skimmed over it earlier, some bad stuff in there so far...

Account showing as Suspended now.

DrumSteve

J Mysterio wrote: »

Arron Banks Twitter account has been hacked. The hackee has made available all his PMs and such for download from his account. lol!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Arron_banks

Only briefly skimmed over it earlier, some bad stuff in there so far...

First Up wrote: »

None of my business - or the EU's. Nothing to do with Brexit.

Because you know, deep down, that your answer will end up, in some way or other, aligning with the reasons I've hitherto described.

The hypothetical above exposes the frailty of the EU position on migration, and it shines a light, then, on the legitimate migratory reason on why the UK voted to Leave the European Union.

eskimohunt wrote:

The UK could unilaterally decide to have a CTA with those three countries. Would you support it?

None of my business - or the EU's. Nothing to do with Brexit.

First Up wrote: »

The UK's has exactly the same control over immigration from India before and after Brexit. Nobody is advocating worldwide open doors.

Why not though?

Diane Abbott is one example (not of worldwide, but extending free movement to large parts of the world).

Offer some reasons why we shouldn't open the door to India, Pakistan and China?

The UK could unilaterally decide to have a CTA with those three countries. Would you support it?

eskimohunt wrote:

The UK also has close historic ties with India, but the economic situation in India would mean that tens of millions of Indians would move to the UK if an open border existed. That's just a fact - and it's untenable.

The UK's has exactly the same control over immigration from India before and after Brexit. Nobody is advocating worldwide open doors.

Migration between countries that share a market, common standards and common external trade arrangements is a logical and essential part of building pan-European cooperation, scale and efficiencies.

It is exactly the same as migration within the US. Do you think California should have restrictions on immigration from Louisiana or Mississippi?

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that we've had a common travel area with the UK for almost a century, and we can see that migration to either country is minimal over that prolonged period; it is managed well and integrated and has no damaging economic consequences.

Compare that with opening up the door to 500 million people, with a net figure of 300-400,000 (for some years) people moving to the UK. Admittedly, the UK has failed utterly to manage the non-EU component, but Brexit affords the ability to resolve the EU component, if politicians have the political will to do the right thing.

I presume since you're comparing migration from Ireland vs. the rest of the EU you have some kind of evidence of the damaging economic consequences caused be EU migration?

Deleted User wrote: »

You cannot have untrammelled access to the UK on that scale. It's untenable.

Yes, migration is needed - but the UK should decide, in advance, who can and cannot enter the country on a work permit basis.

Except people from Ireland, for reasons?

The real reason the Torys want to end FoM is because Indian and Pakistani workers are cheaper than Europeans. They're only interested in driving labour costs down. I still can't for the life of me figure out why that's what you would prefer though. Especially since you claim you'd rather have migrants from countries with shared cultural and economic histories.

First Up wrote: »

You are on thin ice here pal. Europe shares all of these, other than what you consider the cultural differences.

If an economic and political union between countries with hundreds of years of wars between them doesn't make sense to you, maybe you are closer to the problem than the solution.

The difference is that we've had a common travel area with the UK for almost a century, and we can see that migration to either country is minimal over that prolonged period; it is managed well and integrated and has no damaging economic consequences.

Compare that with opening up the door to 500 million people, with a net figure of 300-400,000 (for some years) people moving to the UK. Admittedly, the UK has failed utterly to manage the non-EU component, but Brexit affords the ability to resolve the EU component, if politicians have the political will to do the right thing.

You cannot have untrammelled access to the UK on that scale. It's untenable.

Yes, migration is needed - but the UK should decide, in advance, who can and cannot enter the country on a work permit basis.

You would never open up your front door for as many people to enter as possible. Instead, you control who can and cannot enter based on your own criteria. The same is true for a country. The same is even true for a nightclub, not allowing too many people to enter.

eskimohunt wrote:

A controlled migration policy is a sensible one and, in some cases - such as Autralia and New Zealand - a common travel area makes sense for cultural, economic, geographic and historic reasons.

You are on thin ice here pal. Europe shares all of these, other than what you consider the cultural differences.

If an economic and political union between countries with hundreds of years of wars between them doesn't make sense to you, maybe you are closer to the problem than the solution.

lawred2

I see Sterling has rebounded strongly since August... Is this a wee bit presumptuous?

First Up wrote: »

46% of UK exports go to the EU. 11% of Irish exports go to the UK.

The UK doesn't share a history with Europe? Have you checked the lineage of the Royal family?

It is 100% of your Brexit argumentn

As per my point above, for geographic, historic, cultural, political, and economic reasons - a cumulative combination of all of the above, means it makes sense for Ireland and the UK to maintain a common travel area.

The UK also has close historic ties with India, but the economic situation in India would mean that tens of millions of Indians would move to the UK if an open border existed. That's just a fact - and it's untenable.

It is estimated that as many as six million people living in the UK have an Irish-born grandparent (around 10% of the UK population). The 2001 UK Census states that 869,093 people born in Ireland are living in Great Britain.

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK and Ireland share cultural links; close population ties; important economic ties; and so forth.

There is a shared history, even if it hasn't always been harmonious.

I won't dwell further on this point, as it may derail the conversation away from Brexit.

I think we should dwell on it because it brings up an important point. You're saying you think immigration is good between countries with strong social and economic ties. Are you saying that you don't think the UK has strong economic and cultural ties with the rest of Europe?

eskimohunt wrote:

The UK and Ireland share cultural links; close population ties; important economic ties; and so forth.

46% of UK exports go to the EU. 11% of Irish exports go to the UK.

eskimohunt wrote:

There is a shared history, even if it hasn't always been harmonious.

The UK doesn't share a history with Europe? Have you checked the lineage of the Royal family?

eskimohunt wrote:

I won't dwell further on this point, as it may derail the conversation away from Brexit.

It is 100% of your Brexit argumentn