Brexit discussion thread II

oscarBravo

The Liberal Democrats said the huge sum for relocating the agency – considered a jewel in the EU‘s crown, because it attracts businesses and experts – was among the most “crazy” aspects of withdrawal.

Well, Gove did say that the UK has had enough of experts.

Enzokk

Wait, please solo, tell me if the UK wants to control immigration? How do you do that without a border? The talk of trade is secondry to controlling immigration. First the UK decides where it stands regarding controlling immigration through border control, then we see what type of trade arrangement can be done. If the UK wants to limit EU immigration then the talks can start what type of deal can be done regarding trade.

Next the UK then has to decide what it wants for NI. Do they want to include it in the UK trade deal and cease the CTA, or will they be open to the idea of sea borders only and no land border with the EU. This will preserve CTA between NI and Ireland but will allow the UK the control they crave for immigration. This will also allow NI to be somewhat shielded from Brexit, which they didn't vote for, and allow minimal disruption of trade between NI and Ireland. Northern Ireland will get their cake and eat it, they will still be part of the UK but will still enjoy the benefits of the EU they rely on. The price is border checks with mainland Brittain.

In these choices I have given its always the UK that decides, not as you would like us to believe the EU.

But you haven't really commented on what the UK wants. They want to have EU membership without the 'drawbacks' of immigration. They also want to negotiate their own trade deals while in the customs union. This is not possible, do you agree?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Discussion of the Irish/Uk border moved to this thread, as it seems to be a discrete enough issue:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057768793

General UK immigration, shengen, flights etc in this thread, issues concerning GFA, hard land borders and other Ireland specific issues in the other thread please!

sondagefaux

Remember a couple of weeks back when Michael Gove decided that the UK would withdraw from the 1960s London Fisheries Convention, and commentators said that it would mean that only UK fishing vessels would be allowed to fish within UK fishing waters?

Guess what?

He's gone to Denmark and indicated that Danish fishing vessels could continue to have access to UK fishing waters.


http://finans.dk/protected/erhverv/ECE9758061/britisk-minister-giver-danske-fiskere-nyt-haab-fortsat-adgang-til-britiske-farvande-efter-brexit

Stick this article through Google translate and you get:

British minister gives Danish fishermen new hope: Continued access to British waters after Brexit

One of the most prominent ministers in the British government has been in Denmark to hold meetings with representatives of Danish fisheries and food industry. For Danish fishing, the meeting offered surprisingly positive news.

Jim2007

sondagefaux wrote: »

Remember a couple of weeks back when Michael Gove decided that the UK would withdraw from the 1960s London Fisheries Convention, and commentators said that it would mean that only UK fishing vessels would be allowed to fish within UK fishing waters?

Guess what?

He's gone to Denmark and indicated that Danish fishing vessels could continue to have access to UK fishing waters.


http://finans.dk/protected/erhverv/ECE9758061/britisk-minister-giver-danske-fiskere-nyt-haab-fortsat-adgang-til-britiske-farvande-efter-brexit

Stick this article through Google translate and you get:

It also shows how stupid the man is! Denmark cannot conclude any deals with the U.K. and the EU will require the same access for all. And if the new U.K. strategy is to try and divide the 27 all that will happen is that they will waste more time on it and get no where.

Bit cynical

Jim2007 wrote: »

It also shows how stupid the man is! Denmark cannot conclude any deals with the U.K. and the EU will require the same access for all.

Hmmm. Well the Danes seem to think otherwise.

Capt'n Midnight

sondagefaux wrote: »

Remember a couple of weeks back when Michael Gove decided that the UK would withdraw from the 1960s London Fisheries Convention, and commentators said that it would mean that only UK fishing vessels would be allowed to fish within UK fishing waters?

Guess what?

He's gone to Denmark and indicated that Danish fishing vessels could continue to have access to UK fishing waters.

This from Tuesday 18 April 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/denmark-to-contest-uk-efforts-to-take-back-control-of-fisheries

The British government’s plan to “take back control” of its waters after leaving the EU is about to be challenged by a claim from Denmark that its fishermen have a historical right to access to the seas around Britain dating back to the 1400s.

Looks like the UK might not be able to take control since it allowed others

Copenhagen plans to point to the UN convention on the law of the sea, which instructs states to respect the “traditional fishing rights” of adjacent countries within sovereign waters. The UK and Denmark are both signatories.

Or the other way of looking at is that if the UK is serious about leaving the London Fisheries Convention it's going to be messy because it predates the UK's entry into the EU, the original being from 1882 .

Not sure if the UK can apply this article as they signed up to the Common Fisheries Policy
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/acrc/fish64.txt.html

Article 15

The present Convention shall be of unlimited duration. However
at any time after the expiration of a period of twenty years
from the initial entry into force of the present Convention, any
Contracting Party may denounce the Convention by giving two
years' notice in writing to the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The latter shall notify
the denunciation to the Contracting Parties.

At best it just means that the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg ! , the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden might have more reasons to make hints about voting against a new trade deal later on.

joeysoap

I thought the Belgians also had fishing rights ( maybe confined to Brugge?) in British waters?

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

Hmmm. Well the Danes seem to think otherwise.

The can think all they like the ECJ will say differently

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The can think all they like the ECJ will say differently

I don't think the EU can stop boats of a particular country fishing in a non-EU country's waters. If, for example, Canada said that Ireland could fish in their waters, I don't think the EU could stop Irish boats from making their way there and fishing.

What the EU might be able to do, on the other hand, is prevent, for example, Ireland entering an arrangement whereby a non-EU country is allowed to fish in Ireland's waters since our waters are under EU control.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I don't think the EU can stop boats of a particular country fishing in a non-EU country's waters. If, for example, Canada said that Ireland could fish in their waters, I don't think the EU could stop Irish boats from making their way there and fishing.

Of course not, but Ireland could not reciprocate by granting Canada preferential terms for something outside the terms of the EU - Canada trade agreement.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

Of course not, but Ireland could not reciprocate by granting Canada preferential terms for something outside the terms of the EU - Canada trade agreement.

That is true but I think in the case of Denmark, the UK is honoring a pre-existing arrangement. If the Danish side of the arrangement violates EU rules in some way then the EU can put a stop to the Danish part of it, but the EU can't stop the Danish fishing fleet from leaving EU waters (which I think is what is being disputed). As far as I'm aware, the EU have no powers in this matter, and the UK - shortly to be a non-EU country - will have no obligation to deal with the EU as a whole rather than individual member states.

Capt'n Midnight

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is true but I think in the case of Denmark, the UK is honoring a pre-existing arrangement.

No.

The UK tore up the pre-existing deal. And Denmark reminded them of an older deal.

In negotiations trust and consistency are important. Unilaterally exiting long term treaties and then U-turning doesn't display either.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Whilst acknowledging that there will be continued challenges in the months ahead it is fascinating to read that Mark Carney suggested that the financial sector in the UK could be double the size in 25 years according to this article in the Guardian.

If that's the outcome the UK will remain Europe's investment banker. The challenge will be to get back to manufacturing and to increase other areas of the economy after Brexit.

There's challenges with Brexit but the sky won't fall in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Whilst acknowledging that there will be continued challenges in the months ahead it is fascinating to read that Mark Carney suggested that the financial sector in the UK could be double the size in 25 years according to this article in the Guardian.

If that's the outcome the UK will remain Europe's investment banker. The challenge will be to get back to manufacturing and to increase other areas of the economy after Brexit.

There's challenges with Brexit but the sky won't fall in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Double the size based on what specifically?

Billy86

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Did you ever get back to those who were asking you how the UK would manage to have an open border with Ireland while having tight immigration controls?

solodeogloria

Billy86 wrote: »

Did you ever get back to those who were asking you how the UK would manage to have an open border with Ireland while having tight immigration controls?

Good evening!

I read a post from one of the moderators that suggested that should be moved to a different thread. There's not really much to comment. For proposals that the British government suggested you can look at some of the options James Brokenshire suggested last year.

Immigration isn't primarily the issue with the border. The issue is trading terms and customs. Immigration controls don't necessarily require a hard border in Northern Ireland. This can be handled with controls through employment or through registering for national insurance numbers.

The UK Government have been clear about preserving the CTA and working with the Irish government on immigration. They seem to have accepted that the border would be porous but there are ways to handle this.

I'd suggest continuing the conversation on the thread but the UK government haven't proposed a hard border.

Edit - listermint just read the article. You'll see everything you need to answer that question in it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Junkyard Tom

listermint wrote: »

Double the size based on what specifically?

Presumably world GDP. Perhaps he meant 'all things being equal GB's financial sector should double, in line with projected world growth, in 25 years'.

'All things being equal' is unlikely, if there's one thing that's predictable about the future it's that it is inherently unpredictable.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Whilst acknowledging that there will be continued challenges in the months ahead it is fascinating to read that Mark Carney suggested that the financial sector in the UK could be double the size in 25 years according to this article in the Guardian.

If that's the outcome the UK will remain Europe's investment banker. The challenge will be to get back to manufacturing and to increase other areas of the economy after Brexit.

There's challenges with Brexit but the sky won't fall in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

His comments are based on the very big IF that the EU countries decide that, after Brexit, they want London to be the EU's financial centre - but completely "offshore" and out of their jurisdiction - thus allowing London to be get all the "reward" while, no doubt, all the "risk" would go to the EU countries.

The EU countries could, of course, agree to that just like they could agree to all sorts of other one-sided arrangements that favour the UK but it isn't very likely, is it?

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Whilst acknowledging that there will be continued challenges in the months ahead it is fascinating to read that Mark Carney
...

said "Households have cut spending since Brexit"

Not much good news there.

I'd be scared of consumers borrowing more. Interest rates are very low at the moment. People who are borrowing to survive will have a very hard time if interest rates go up. But it's OK because their assets will be snapped up by the rich then.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/20/one-in-four-uk-families-have-less-than-95-in-savings-report-finds

In a sign of growing financial strain, low-income families had just £95 of savings and investments, excluding pensions, this winter, compared with £136 in the same period last year. That figure jumps to £62,885 among high-income families, up from £50,208 a year earlier.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Did you ever get back to those who were asking you how the UK would manage to have an open border with Ireland while having tight immigration controls?

Good evening!

I read a post from one of the moderators that suggested that should be moved to a different thread. There's not really much to comment. For proposals that the British government suggested you can look at some of the options James Brokenshire suggested last year.

Immigration isn't primarily the issue with the border. The issue is trading terms and customs. Immigration controls don't necessarily require a hard border in Northern Ireland. This can be handled with controls through employment or through registering for national insurance numbers.

The UK Government have been clear about preserving the CTA and working with the Irish government on immigration. They seem to have accepted that the border would be porous but there are ways to handle this.

I'd suggest continuing the conversation on the thread but the UK government haven't proposed a hard border.

The UK haven't come out and said they want a hard border, but they want to control immigration. This means checks for EU citizens to stop them coming to the UK and settling. Do you think it is viable to have employers check immigration status? We have already seen Ministers resign because they employed illegal workers. The easiest way to control immigration is to stop them coming in.

The UK also wants to leave all EU institutions as this is what people voted for. You could argue that not everyone voted to leave all of the EU, but leaving everything related to the EU is the easiest way to fulfill this. This is what the UK government seems to be plotting...at least some of the government.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK haven't come out and said they want a hard border, but they want to control immigration. This means checks for EU citizens to stop them coming to the UK and settling. Do you think it is viable to have employers check immigration status? We have already seen Ministers resign because they employed illegal workers. The easiest way to control immigration is to stop them coming in.

The UK also wants to leave all EU institutions as this is what people voted for. You could argue that not everyone voted to leave all of the EU, but leaving everything related to the EU is the easiest way to fulfill this. This is what the UK government seems to be plotting...at least some of the government.

Good morning!

Again even if you feel a hard border is easiest it isn't what the British Government want and it isn't what James Brokenshire suggested. What you think is easiest is irrelevant.

On employment checks you've misunderstood me. My point is that on entry to the UK all people including EU citizens even today have to go for a National Insurance interview at a job centre. The staff asked for proof of employment, a copy of my passport, my PPS number from Ireland and a number of other things before granting me the number or my right to work basically. Employers will not and should not pay you without this.

In the event that you apply for work without the correct rights then it is reasonable that your employer should have a legal obligation to inform the Home Office. I'm fairly sure this happens for non-EEA nationals already. Again, when I was employed at my company they asked me to fill in a declaration that I had the right to work in the UK and provide my passport to demonstrate that right.

My point is that immigration controls are possible without a hard border.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

On employment checks you've misunderstood me. My point is that on entry to the UK all people including EU citizens even today have to go for a National Insurance interview at a job centre. The staff asked for proof of employment, a copy of my passport, my PPS number from Ireland and a number of other things before granting me the number or my right to work basically. Employers will not and should not pay you without this.

In the event that you apply for work without the correct rights then it is reasonable that your employer should have a legal obligation to inform the Home Office. I'm fairly sure this happens for non-EEA nationals already. Again, when I was employed at my company they asked me to fill in a declaration that I had the right to work in the UK and provide my passport to demonstrate that right.

My point is that immigration controls are possible without a hard border.

The UK has all this at present, as you point out, but that doesn't stop them from also having fairly tough border controls, as you'll know if you've ever arrived in the UK from a non-EU destination and bearing a non-EU passport. They don't have these border controls for fun, or as a make-work scheme; experience has shown them that relying on employers as the front-line enforcers of immigration policy is not very effective. (Which isn't terribly surprising, when you think about it for a few minutes.)

Internationally, as regards immigration controls, there's basically one of two ways you can go:

1. Tough border controls. Traditionally favoured by island nations (like the UK and Australia) that have natural borders, the movement over which is relatively easy to monitor and control.

2. Population registration. Everyone has to register with the police or the municipality where they live, and they are then issued with identity cards which are necessary (and useful) for all kinds of civic and administrative purposes. This is common on the European mainland, in South and Central America, etc, where many nations have extremely porous borders and tough border control can only achieve so much. You're less concerned about who crosses the border if you can continually monitor people's status through a population registration system.

Obviously, you can combine these in varying ways, but these are basically the two approaches that you're working with. The UK, as noted, has traditionally favoured option 1. Its experiments with option 2 (e.g. employment vouchers in the 1960s) have generally not worked well, and have been abandoned.

What you're proposing is, essentially, to use the national insurance system as a proxy for population registration. I can see all kinds of problems with this, starting with; it's huge system, created and designed for entirely different (and very important) public purposes, and to reverse-engineer it for immigration purposes is going to be expensive, disruptive, time-consuming and not necessarily very successful. Large numbers of people who do not have a right to work in the UK already have NI numbers because, e.g. they came to the UK to study, or they came to the UK as dependents of others. Many of these people no longer live in the UK but, if they return, they'll have a valid NI number. NI numbers are for life - this is a key feature of the system - and if you want to change the system so that an NI number is cancelled if you cease to have the right to work in the UK, that's a pretty fundamental change. Expect the DHSS and the Revenue to object vigorously to any plan that involves the immigration tail wagging the national insurance dog.

Plus, even if you solve that problem, while you can impose a legal obligation on employers to flag job applicants who have no, or invalid, NI numbers, you need to recognise that the commercial/economic interest of the employers is not to do so. Human nature being what it is, you should expect that rates of compliance by employers with these obligations will be, um, not exemplary.

And I could go on. But the bottom line is that, if you rely on population registration (whatever name you give it) to enforce immigration law rather than border controls, you're going to need a population registration system that is as comprehensive, and as intrusive, as the systems they have in mainland European countries. Politically in the UK that would be a hard sell ("Making British Citizens carry around identity papers!"), especially with some of the more Brexity types. This isn't what they voted for; they voted for border controls.

Lemming

as an FYI ... I was employed into a UK government contract, working at a government facility, with no NI number, nor did I have one for over six weeks whilst I waited for that aforementioned job centre interview.

Good luck policing that.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK has all this at present, as you point out, but that doesn't stop them from also having fairly tough border controls, as you'll know if you've ever arrived in the UK from a non-EU destination and bearing a non-EU passport. They don't have these border controls for fun, or as a make-work scheme; experience has shown them that relying on employers as the front-line enforcers of immigration policy is not very effective. (Which isn't terribly surprising, when you think about it for a few minutes.)

Internationally, as regards immigration controls, there's basically one of two ways you can go:

1. Tough border controls. Traditionally favoured by island nations (like the UK and Australia) that have natural borders, the movement over which is relatively easy to monitor and control.

2. Population registration. Everyone has to register with the police or the municipality where they live, and they are then issued with identity cards which are necessary (and useful) for all kinds of civic and administrative purposes. This is common on the European mainland, in South and Central America, etc, where many nations have extremely porous borders and tough border control can only achieve so much. You're less concerned about who crosses the border if you can continually monitor people's status through a population registration system.

Obviously, you can combine these in varying ways, but these are basically the two approaches that you're working with. The UK, as noted, has traditionally favoured option 1. Its experiments with option 2 (e.g. employment vouchers in the 1960s) have generally not worked well, and have been abandoned.

What you're proposing is, essentially, to use the national insurance system as a proxy for population registration. I can see all kinds of problems with this, starting with; it's huge system, created and designed for entirely different (and very important) public purposes, and to reverse-engineer it for immigration purposes is going to be expensive, disruptive, time-consuming and not necessarily very successful. Large numbers of people who do not have a right to work in the UK already have NI numbers because, e.g. they came to the UK to study, or they came to the UK as dependents of others. Many of these people no longer live in the UK but, if they return, they'll have a valid NI number. NI numbers are for life - this is a key feature of the system - and if you want to change the system so that an NI number is cancelled if you cease to have the right to work in the UK, that's a pretty fundamental change. Expect the DHSS and the Revenue to object vigorously to any plan that involves the immigration tail wagging the national insurance dog.

Plus, even if you solve that problem, while you can impose a legal obligation on employers to flag job applicants who have no, or invalid, NI numbers, you need to recognise that the commercial/economic interest of the employers is not to do so. Human nature being what it is, you should expect that rates of compliance by employers with these obligations will be, um, not exemplary.

And I could go on. But the bottom line is that, if you rely on population registration (whatever name you give it) to enforce immigration law rather than border controls, you're going to need a population registration system that is as comprehensive, and as intrusive, as the systems they have in mainland European countries. Politically in the UK that would be a hard sell ("Making British Citizens carry around identity papers!"), especially with some of the more Brexity types. This isn't what they voted for; they voted for border controls.

Good morning!

The leave side mentioned the border would be open during the referendum.

The reality is that even now the Northern Irish border is imperfect. If you are a non-EU citizen and have a visa for Ireland and want to cross into the UK through Northern Ireland you can without much hindrance. It is possible. It's not foolproof. But it isn't today either.

Immigration controls will be applied but they can only be relatively light touch. For every other border outside of the CTA this can be applied. In airports, ferry ports, Folkestone and St Pancras in a harder way. Indeed these controls already exist, the only addition will be a check for a visa waiver or a visa / settled status.

You'll notice that arriving in the UK from Ireland is different to arriving from mainland Europe. You pass through the UK Border Force from mainland Europe whereas you don't from Ireland. I see no reason for that to change.

As I say the primary concern about the border are trading and customs terms and how these are implemented which is a matter for the negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

I still don't see how the UK delivers what it wants with it can realistically get. It is easy to be optimistic about the negotiations but I think the reality will be different. Take it the trade deal. One could think that because the UK is trading with the EU at the moment you could easily just transfer the current arrangements right now to a new deal and that will be fine. That is what was done for years, but this ignores that the reason for those arrangements was the EU membership that the UK had.

Also, trade deals with other countries would surely not be as easy as deleting the EU and adding the UK instead. There will need to be negotiations on what the UK will be able to offer a country. Take Japan, they have given in to allow a certain amount of agriculture trade from the EU per year. If the UK wants to trade with Japan they will now have to offer something in return if they also want to sell e.g. beef to Japan. Japan has already given up concessions to the EU, the UK will now have to compete against the EU for some of that trade.

I agree that it will be easier to start negotiations as the UK will only have its own interests that it needs to think about, but that is one of the few positives the UK will have for it.

I would still like an answer on how the UK can deliver a CTA with Ireland and curb immigration? How they can have frictionless trade with the EU and be out of the EU? How they can have no customs checks with the EU when they want to leave the customs union?

It would take some massive concessions from the EU to allow the UK to get what it wants and be outside of the EU. To be honest if the UK is able to have close to their current arrangements with the EU without any of the membership terms then I would like Ireland to rethink EU membership. I don't think this would be allowed to happen though.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The leave side mentioned the border would be open during the referendum.

The reality is that even now the Northern Irish border is imperfect. If you are a non-EU citizen and have a visa for Ireland and want to cross into the UK through Northern Ireland you can without much hindrance. It is possible. It's not foolproof. But it isn't today either.

Immigration controls will be applied but they can only be relatively light touch. For every other border outside of the CTA this can be applied. In airports, ferry ports, Folkestone and St Pancras in a harder way. Indeed these controls already exist, the only addition will be a check for a visa waiver or a visa / settled status.

You'll notice that arriving in the UK from Ireland is different to arriving from mainland Europe. You pass through the UK Border Force from mainland Europe whereas you don't from Ireland. I see no reason for that to change.

As I say the primary concern about the border are trading and customs terms and how these are implemented which is a matter for the negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The primary concern about the border are trading and customs terms, provided you're unbothered about migration.

As matters stand, anyone who can get into Ireland can get into the UK.

This is sustainable because

(a) as regards EU nationals, they have a right of entry into the UK anyway, and

(b) as regards the rest of the world, Ireland and the UK have a practice of keeping their migration requirements reasonably closely aligned, and of enforcing one another's migration requirements.

This isn't totally leakproof, but it's sufficiently leakproof to be viable.

But I think than changes if the UK wishes to impose any migration requirements on EU nationals. Ireland cannot and will not impose any control at all on the entry of EU nationals into Ireland. In practical terms, it is cheap and easy for EU nationals to come to Ireland. Therefore, as long as the Ireland/UK border is open to migration, EU nationals can easily enter the UK. So, to be clear, when you talk about a "relatively light touch" and "a check for visa waiver or visa/settled status", you're talking about those checks being imposed on motorists between Dundalk and Newry, aren't you? And on people crossing from Lifford to Strabane? And people on cross-border bus and rail services? And so forth?

If you are talking about that, I don't see that you can call that a "relatively light touch". If you're not talking about that, then I don't see that the UK can impose effective controls on EU nationals entering the UK; they can come in quite freely through Ireland. In which case the UK might as well make virtue of necessity, and negotiate a high degree of reciprocal free movement, because if they don't they'll be granting unilateral free movement.

The only way I think you can square this circle is by treating the RoI/NI land border as the border for customs and trade purposes, but the Irish Sea as the border for migration purpose - i.e. impose your "light touch" visa checks on air and ferry services between Ireland and Britain. And I think that would be a political non-starter with the majority in NI, and with a fairly large segment of opinion in Britain also.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I thought I was clear. Northern Ireland border should be open for movement with employment checks on arrival. The risk of leakage is already there on the Irish border. I'm proposing no UK Border Force checks within Ireland. Secondary employment checks can be applied. The National Insurance process needs to be reformed to deal with visas and immigration status. Employers should be legally bound to report anomalies to the Home Office. They aren't perfect but they will do. The UK intends to keep the border open.

Non-CTA borders (other air, ferry and land routes) should have full UK Border Force checks like today. From mainland Europe and from other countries these checks would apply as today.

Customs and trade terms are more difficult to resolve. They need to be thrashed out in the negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I'm still unclear, solo, as to whether you're proposing any migration/Border Force checks on travel between [Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland] and [Great Britain].

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

You'll notice that arriving in the UK from Ireland is different to arriving from mainland Europe. You pass through the UK Border Force from mainland Europe whereas you don't from Ireland. I see no reason for that to change

Huh? This is completely contradictory to what the Leave side pushed for.

It ignores the fundamental change that is coming that EU migrants will have no automatic right to enter the UK.

They will retain that right to enter Ireland.

If the UK leaves the border open, there's no control over EU migration into the UK at the UK border. The border is only as strong as it's weakest link. There may well be changes to employment law that prevents scrupulous employers from hiring illegal EU migrants but unscrupulous employers will have no such problems and their staff can come and go as they please via Ireland.

It's not what the Leave side campaigned for at all.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK haven't come out and said they want a hard border, but they want to control immigration. This means checks for EU citizens to stop them coming to the UK and settling. Do you think it is viable to have employers check immigration status? We have already seen Ministers resign because they employed illegal workers. The easiest way to control immigration is to stop them coming in.

so you think the UK should turn in to North Korea?

Making sure an employee has a legal right to work in the country is already an obligation for pretty much every employer in the eu, that is how the majority of immigration is policed.

Lemming wrote: »

as an FYI ... I was employed into a UK government contract, working at a government facility, with no NI number, nor did I have one for over six weeks whilst I waited for that aforementioned job centre interview.

Good luck policing that.

I expect you showed your Irish passport though, which would show you have a legal right to work in the UK, correct?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today.

Figures in the Leave campaign mentioned that the border in Ireland would remain open. And Boris Johnson here.

Officially on a Government level Boris Johnson and James Brokenshire have said they don't want a hard border.

You need to stop contriving what the Government's position is and what figures​ in the Leave campaign said about Ireland.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Last post for today.

Figures in the Leave campaign mentioned that the border in Ireland would remain open. And Boris Johnson here.

Officially on a Government level Boris Johnson and James Brokenshire have said they don't want a hard border.

You need to stop contriving what the Government's position is and what figures​ in the Leave campaign said about Ireland.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I know they said that. But figures in the Leave campaign said an awful lot of complete sh!te.

My question has never been what they said. My question was, and remains, how is this going to work?

Blowfish

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know they said that. But figures in the Leave campaign said an awful lot of complete sh!te.

My question has never been what they said. My question was, and remains, how is this going to work?

Precisely. They promised lots of things, the problem is the stuff they promised is contradictory.

Here's a pretty good explanation of it from a NI professor in EU law:

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Making sure an employee has a legal right to work in the country is already an obligation for pretty much every employer in the eu, that is how the majority of immigration is policed

This generally necessitates the use of national identity cards, or at least is closely coupled to it. It will be very hard for the Home Office to do a spot check on a place if the employees don't need to have ID. You can't just ask the foreign looking/sounding people. The system has to treat everyone equally. I very much doubt the Leave side was hoping that a national identity card system would be introduced as a result of Brexit.

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I expect you showed your Irish passport though, which would show you have a legal right to work in the UK, correct?

I was asked for it upon having been employed by my employer. So technically after the fact. Now, that means that for the purpose of using NI numbers as a form of visa control, there's six weeks of work that an employer has gotten out of me - and indeed the Dept. of Health agreed to the situation and gave me access to Dept. electronic resources - in the full knowledge that I was not in receipt of an NI number.

I could easily have been refused an NI number at interview, rendering the whole matter legally precarious and making an absolute mockery of any notions of using an NI number as a work permit/visa/whatever-expression-you're-having-today-yourself.

Which also raises another matter .... any attempt to apply for an NI number without first being resident in the UK will not fly. The Dept of Work & Pensions will not entertain your application. That means, you, as an immigrant, would most likely have to arrive in the country unemployed, unless you were fortunate enough to secure an offer of employment prior to immigrating. I pretty much had to wait the maximum possible number of weeks (six) for my NI interview, which is pure lottery based on region and timing as well. But, if NI numbers are suggested used as visa control, lets see that circle squared away folks.

demfad

Just to be aware Mike Flynn has recently filed that he contracted for Cambridge Analytica who were the big data firm behind Brexit and Trump.
https://www.apnews.com/a250d1088af44a3b8b55275dc97de608
To recap: Cambridge did work illegally for Leave.EU to the value of 6-7 million.
Two former employess of Cambridge worked on the Official Leave campaign. Cambridge's sister company 'AggregateIQ' was contracted illegally by ALL 5 leave cmapigns. Official leave payed 3.5 million, half their total, to AggregateIQ.
Cambridge is being investigated as part of Trump-Russia in how fake news from Russia reached dark posts of targetted facebook users in a precise and coordinated fashion.
The implication here is that CA coordinated with the Kremlin to achieve this.
Another story tying Trump-Russia to Brexit. Not huge, but with AAron Banks likley to be called to the Senate Intel commitee to explain his links to Trump-Brexit and Russia...the trickle has started.
Will this turn into another scandal, one that Brexit surely could not survive?

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

This generally necessitates the use of national identity cards, or at least is closely coupled to it. It will be very hard for the Home Office to do a spot check on a place if the employees don't need to have ID. You can't just ask the foreign looking/sounding people. The system has to treat everyone equally. I very much doubt the Leave side was hoping that a national identity card system would be introduced as a result of Brexit.

It is currently in place, an employer is legally obliged to ensure that all their employees gave a legal entitlement to work in that country. The same applies in Ireland the same way it does in the UK. Neither currently has a compulsory national id card.

I'm a British national, but when I was contracting I was asked for proof on a regular basis. All the agencies I used had a copy of my passport in file.

Fratton Fred

Lemming wrote: »

I was asked for it upon having been employed by my employer. So technically after the fact.

After the fact, technically, but if you were unable to provide this, then you would not have been fully recruited. Correct?

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

After the fact, technically, but if you were unable to provide this, then you would not have been fully recruited. Correct?

Fred; I was recruited. I turned up and was asked to present my passport AFTER I had presented myself for work and was in the building and into my first week of employment. Do you understand? I was already IN the country and officially working at that point. Working on behalf of a government department I might add (again to underscore that point).

Capt'n Midnight

Deutsche Bank jobs and €300 billion leaving the UK. Ouch.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/deutsche-bank-expects-to-move-4-000-jobs-to-eu-after-brexit-1.3174401

Chief regulatory officer Sylvie Matherat said in April that as many as 4,000 jobs could be at stake in the UK post-Brexit, especially front-office staff dealing with EU clients and associated risk managers.
...

Deutsche Bank will probably move about €300 billion of balance sheet assets out of London as it books more trades in Frankfurt following Brexit, people briefed on the matter said last month.

Fratton Fred

Lemming wrote: »

Fred; I was recruited. I turned up and was asked to present my passport AFTER I had presented myself for work and was in the building and into my first week of employment. Do you understand? I was already IN the country and officially working at that point. Working on behalf of a government department I might add (again to underscore that point).

And you had already had an interview and presented your cv, so your employer knew you were irish and therefore entitled to work in the UK, but asked for proof to verify this on your first day?

Citizens of 56 non eu countries can currently enter the UK without a visa. What they can't do is work, so being in the UK isn't a problem. If you failed to provide evidence that you do not have legal entitlement to work then you had taken a job under false pretenses so no, you would not have been officially working.

Capt'n Midnight

The Germans car industry won't be lobbying* to appease the UK if they don't buy cars.

It's also another bad sign for the economy and consumer sentiment in general. iIt's another indication that Brexit is starting to bite.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40823239

New car registrations fell 9.3% in July from a year earlier, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

The trade body said the market was falling - for the fourth month in a row - amid "growing uncertainty" over plans for Brexit.

...
Mr Tombs warned that financial deals to buy cars may become more expensive, and the price of cars could rise by about 3% in both 2018 and 2019 because of the weaker pound.

"Car sales tend to lag consumer confidence by about six months - many of the cars registered in July will have been ordered several months ago - so the recent post-election slump in sentiment indicates that the downturn has further to run," he added.

* They have been saying all along that EU unity is more important

Capt'n Midnight

Back to fishing. And taking back sovereignty. And British jobs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40814377

Mr Gove, the UK environment secretary, said British fishermen would not have the capacity to land all of the fish in British territorial waters.

And he said that some access would therefore be granted to vessels from other countries.

Sounds like it's business as usual for the big boats and with the local fishermen being denied a chance to increase their share.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/half-of-english-fishing-quotas-controlled-by-overseas-firms-9836970.html

A single Dutch vessel, the Cornelis Vrolijk, accounts for almost a quarter of the entire English catch and about 6 per cent of the total UK quota.

The 370ft trawler may operate out of Hull under a British flag, but it’s entire catch – which last year came in 34.4 tonnes of mackerel, herring, scad and blue whiting worth £17m – is landed in Holland.

The Greenpeace investigation highlights two related issues of concern. First, that the fishing industry is dominated by a handful of giant and often foreign-owned companies using big boats.

And second, that the 5,000 small boats operated by the traditional UK fishing families are increasingly marginalised – holding just 4 per cent of the entire UK quota between them.

steddyeddy

There is no way that the UK can maintain its place on the world stage out of the EU. It's position is dependent on its membership of the single market.

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is no way that the UK can maintain its place on the world stage out of the EU. It's position is dependent on its membership of the single market.

They will simply acquire a new place as other great nations have before them.

They have already lost almost all of their Empire since 1945 - however they still have a few small bits left scattered around the globe. Joining the EEC allowed a return to economic growth and a build up of great wealth from those dark days of rationing and shortages of the post-war years.

The Ottoman Empire is now Turkey, with all its former constituents making their own way in the world. The Austo-Hungarian Empire is now divided up with Hungary, Austria, and the other bits that are now independent, like Serbia, Kosova, etc.

Iraq and Syria are just shadows of what they were just a few decades ago because of unhelpful intervention by foreign powers.

North Korea is perhaps the most extreme example of a country that wanted to take back control and go for splendid isolation. They achieved that alright, but may get visitors quite soon.

Yes, Britain will find a new place in the world - but maybe not one it would choose willingly.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will simply acquire a new place as other great nations have before them.

They have already lost almost all of their Empire since 1945 - however they still have a few small bits left scattered around the globe. Joining the EEC allowed a return to economic growth and a build up of great wealth from those dark days of rationing and shortages of the post-war years.

The Ottoman Empire is now Turkey, with all its former constituents making their own way in the world. The Austo-Hungarian Empire is now divided up with Hungary, Austria, and the other bits that are now independent, like Serbia, Kosova, etc.

Iraq and Syria are just shadows of what they were just a few decades ago because of unhelpful intervention by foreign powers.

North Korea is perhaps the most extreme example of a country that wanted to take back control and go for splendid isolation. They achieved that alright, but may get visitors quite soon.

Yes, Britain will find a new place in the world - but maybe not one it would choose willingly.

Off topic Sam, but you should read a great book called Vanished Kingdoms. It gives great accounts of empires, kingdoms and regions that used to exist. Kimgdoms such as Bohemia and empires like Byzantium.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

This generally necessitates the use of national identity cards, or at least is closely coupled to it. It will be very hard for the Home Office to do a spot check on a place if the employees don't need to have ID. You can't just ask the foreign looking/sounding people. The system has to treat everyone equally. I very much doubt the Leave side was hoping that a national identity card system would be introduced as a result of Brexit.

Good morning!

It seems like you've not read the British proposals so far.

At present for a non-EU national if your passport is checked in Britain you also need to provide a biometric ID issued by the Home Office to prove that you've got the appropriate visa to work. Employers already do this type of check on employment. The national insurance system also does this for non-EU nationals.

When the settled status option is given according to British plans a similar visa will be given to EU citizens currently living here along with an biometric ID for other forms of visa that emerge from Brexit.

There is no need for any UK citizen or indeed Irish citizen from the CTA to get one of these.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It seems like you've not read the British proposals so far.

At present for a non-EU national if your passport is checked in Britain you also need to provide a biometric ID issued by the Home Office to prove that you've got the appropriate visa to work. Employers already do this type of check on employment. The national insurance system also does this for non-EU nationals.

When the settled status option is given according to British plans a similar visa will be given to EU citizens currently living here along with an biometric ID for other forms of visa that emerge from Brexit.

There is no need for any UK citizen or indeed Irish citizen from the CTA to get one of these.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So when the Home Office does a spot check on a slaughterhouse they ask everyone for ID, or only those who look/sound foreign?

When all the employees insist they are British citizens so don't need to carry ID, do you retain them all?

It's unworkable without racial profiling (though this may not be illegal in Brexit Britain in a few years).

Here in Germany that spot check would work because almost all the actual German (EU) citizens carry a national ID card and can quickly identify themselves as such and there's an Ausweißpflicht (compulsion to be able to identify yourself to a a police officer or face detention) anyway. That's not the case in the UK and makes it very difficult to identify who is legally working on that premises and who is not.

The UK has made lots of wishy washy proposals solo. So far very little concrete anything and this is just another area where the soundbites are evaporating as the reality of implementation becomes apparent.

listermint

murphaph wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It seems like you've not read the British proposals so far.

At present for a non-EU national if your passport is checked in Britain you also need to provide a biometric ID issued by the Home Office to prove that you've got the appropriate visa to work. Employers already do this type of check on employment. The national insurance system also does this for non-EU nationals.

When the settled status option is given according to British plans a similar visa will be given to EU citizens currently living here along with an biometric ID for other forms of visa that emerge from Brexit.

There is no need for any UK citizen or indeed Irish citizen from the CTA to get one of these.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So when the Home Office does a spot check on a slaughterhouse they ask everyone for ID, or only those who look/sound foreign?

When all the employees insist they are British citizens so don't need to carry ID, do you retain them all?

It's unworkable without racial profiling (though this may not be illegal in Brexit Britain in a few years).

Here in Germany that spot check would work because almost all the actual German (EU) citizens carry a national ID card and can quickly identify themselves as such and there's an Ausweißpflicht (compulsion to be able to identify yourself to a a police officer or face detention) anyway. That's not the case in the UK and makes it very difficult to identify who is legally working on that premises and who is not.

The UK has made lots of wishy washy proposals solo. So far very little concrete anything and this is just another area where the soundbites are evaporating as the reality of implementation becomes apparent.

Don't be incredulous, british citizens would just be required to carry their passports to work no need for two id's. Sure two id's would be overkill