EU. In or out?

[Fried Egg Sandwich]

It’s far far easier to justify the status quo than read a crystal ball.
That’s not to say that I don’t accept it’s virtually impossible to specify what ‘improvements’ will come out of leave but if people and countries didn’t push the metaphorical boundaries then we would still be living in the dark ages. Sometimes you know in your heart it’s the right thing to do.

Translation. There are no benefits of leaving the EU.

[daveuprite]

By the way, vast numbers of these migrants (not genuine refugees) are finding the substantial funds (apparently about £7k per person now) to pay the nasty little facilitators to get to Europe, money that could be far better used at home, I suspect.

You are referring there to non-EU immigration, none of which would be affected by the UK's withdrawal from the EU. But there's a much bigger point here. You choose to play the 'genuine refugee' card, which is a classic method used to diminish and denigrate migrants, who travel to escape poverty, wars, climate change etc. Some of those motivations technically classify the person as 'refugee', some not, but they are all strong and justified drivers for movement regardless. If I faced failed crops, food shortages, no prospects and political corruption in my homeland, when I can clearly see what a better life can be had in Europe, and if I had the chance to get out, then I would get moving too. While the richer nations continually refuse to address the gross inequality between (for instance) sub-saharan Africa and Western Europe, it is tediously obvious that people will of course travel from the bad to the good. If you really want this solved, target your anger at the right people. The policy makers, not the migrants.

[Elmer J Fudd]

Question:

If we are out of the EU and migrants / refugees come across to the UK via the EU, what can we do with them?

Can we just send them back to wherever we think they came from (France / Ireland etc. as is the current situation)? Or, having left the EU, can those countries just refuse to take them back, which would actually make things worse in the UK?

I don't know the answer; does anyone?

Also to indirectly answer a post previously. If a migrant enters the UK from another part of the EU and makes no attempt to sustain themselves THE UK CAN SEND THEM BACK to their own country so they are not a burden on the UK. Not sure we ever do though, and leavers seem to "forget" this fact when pontificating about immigration.

[daveuprite]

Question:

If we are out of the EU and migrants / refugees come across to the UK via the EU, what can we do with them?

Can we just send them back to wherever we think they came from (France / Ireland etc. as is the current situation)? Or, having left the EU, can those countries just refuse to take them back, which would actually make things worse in the UK?

I don't know the answer; does anyone?

No idea, Elmer. We should all know, of course, with just 25 days to go, but the UK doesn't seem to do formal forward planning anymore. Perhaps that nice lady at the Home Office, Priti Patel, could you give you an answer? She probably has some horrible plans of her own for them, to make them just as unwelcome as her own family was made welcome back in the 1970s....

[DavidS]

Obviously I’m not talking about EU migration
The migrants’ first country of safety is where they should stay. Fair enough, Malta or Cyprus can’t cope but farming them out isn’t the way to deal with it.
The EU turns a blind eye in many many cases and just let them drift through and France, in particular don’t seem fussed about dealing with it. It just says that they will be looked after and makes the idea more attractive so where do you draw the line? Do you let everyone in? Quotas? What is the wonderful EUs plan? It seems reactive, not proactive.
I am only against essentially uncontrolled immigration, not immigration per se.
There is a rush at the moment as the traffickers are telling them that the UK will shut them down once we leave. Whether that happens or not, goodness knows.

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

Obviously I’m not talking about EU migration
The migrants’ first country of safety is where they should stay. Fair enough, Malta or Cyprus can’t cope but farming them out isn’t the way to deal with it.
The EU turns a blind eye in many many cases and just let them drift through and France, in particular don’t seem fussed about dealing with it. It just says that they will be looked after and makes the idea more attractive so where do you draw the line? Do you let everyone in? Quotas? What is the wonderful EUs plan? It seems reactive, not proactive.
I am only against essentially uncontrolled immigration, not immigration per se.
There is a rush at the moment as the traffickers are telling them that the UK will shut them down once we leave. Whether that happens or not, goodness knows.

It makes no difference...they can claim asylum in any country they can get into by legal means or otherwise.

The view in France is that they wish we would introduce identity cards etc and cut down on the generous welfare payments, which attract people to the UK from all over the globe and who use Northern France as a jump-off point.

At the moment the UK and France work closely together on border security, with the UK having its border controls in Calais, thus preventing many migration claims. That arrangement is conditional on continuing French goodwill.

International statesman Boris Johnson has said the French are 'turds'.

[johnnyboxer]

Except france where its near impossible to work as a non frenchman.....

Not the case Russ. I, and many people I know, are not French but we run small businesses here in France. There's a fair bit of bureaucracy and paperwork to get registered etc but it's very do-able. My wife Tracie works 24 hours a week for a french 'association', gets a salary paid in Euros (obviously) and full employment rights under French law . Getting work in France is quite possible. But the point is that a french salaried job is a proper job. You get a contract, agreed contracted working hours, sick pay and paid holiday entitlement. For that reason workers are required to take paid training courses, or to join metiers (kind of industry guilds) if self-employed. A frenchman can't legally just buy a van, call himself a builder and get on with it. He has to have all the correct accreditation and training etc. There are no zero-hour, zero-rights, hire-and-fire jobs in France (unless they're illegal and on the black of course). Partly as a result, unemployment is higher here, but exploitation and poor-quality jobs are much lower. You are either in a properly regulated salaried job or you are unemployed, looking for a job and looked after by the state. There is very little in the way of dodgy middle ground, as there is in the UK. Taxes are also higher than the UK, although public services are much better in return.

But all of the above requires a fairly settled status. To apply for french employment you will need a steady home, time and patience to apply, money to tide you over while you are job-seeking etc etc. All things unavailable to migrants who left with little, arrive suddenly and unconventionally, and need work as soon as possible. The UK's less-regulated workplaces offer far more chances to get started quickly than France does, although the down-side is the jobs migrants tend to get will often be contract-less, involve poor working conditions, exploited, unreliable and poorly paid. In fact the very conditions that many UK job-seekers do not want. Which is why the fields of Lincolnshire were (until recently) full of Eastern European fruit-pickers.

Sounds like French have it right

[Trev]

Except france where its near impossible to work as a non frenchman.....

Not the case Russ. I, and many people I know, are not French but we run small businesses here in France. There's a fair bit of bureaucracy and paperwork to get registered etc but it's very do-able. My wife Tracie works 24 hours a week for a french 'association', gets a salary paid in Euros (obviously) and full employment rights under French law . Getting work in France is quite possible. But the point is that a french salaried job is a proper job. You get a contract, agreed contracted working hours, sick pay and paid holiday entitlement. For that reason workers are required to take paid training courses, or to join metiers (kind of industry guilds) if self-employed. A frenchman can't legally just buy a van, call himself a builder and get on with it. He has to have all the correct accreditation and training etc. There are no zero-hour, zero-rights, hire-and-fire jobs in France (unless they're illegal and on the black of course). Partly as a result, unemployment is higher here, but exploitation and poor-quality jobs are much lower. You are either in a properly regulated salaried job or you are unemployed, looking for a job and looked after by the state. There is very little in the way of dodgy middle ground, as there is in the UK. Taxes are also higher than the UK, although public services are much better in return.

But all of the above requires a fairly settled status. To apply for french employment you will need a steady home, time and patience to apply, money to tide you over while you are job-seeking etc etc. All things unavailable to migrants who left with little, arrive suddenly and unconventionally, and need work as soon as possible. The UK's less-regulated workplaces offer far more chances to get started quickly than France does, although the down-side is the jobs migrants tend to get will often be contract-less, involve poor working conditions, exploited, unreliable and poorly paid. In fact the very conditions that many UK job-seekers do not want. Which is why the fields of Lincolnshire were (until recently) full of Eastern European fruit-pickers.

Sounds like French have it right

Yup, and the pertinent point is that they can decide that even though being (quite an important) part of the EU. Our high levels of EU and other immigration are down to successive UK government polices NOT our EU membership yet it was helpful for those governments to lead us to think that, and jump on the anti EU bandwagon when when convenient for other 'unliked' policy.

Largely because of that (yes, it was mainly about immigration!!!) we're now going to jack in the obvious benefits of being one of the most powerful and influential members of the worlds largest trading and political club to become the United Kingdom of England with about as much influence as Iceland on a bad week. Nice one

[daveuprite]

to become the United Kingdom of England with about as much influence as Iceland on a bad week.

Oh come on, Trev. Surely Iceland has lots of influence over frozen vegetables?

[Asgard]

It does seem like mission accomplished for projekt fear if this place is any indicator (I'm not entirely sure it is though).

One question for any legal-heads in here: If no deal is reached and Boris has legaly to ask for an extension, then whats to stop him going to brussels and basicaly saying something like

'I want an extension on article 50 for lets say a couple of months to get xmas over with, I don't really care if you grant it and dont expect things will be any different when this latest extension has ended but those barstards in parliament have forced me to ask you, so waddya say'

well waddya say?

Well waddya know, Looks like thats exactly how the Gov wants to play it

Good luck to em.