Brexit discussion thread II

kevthegaff

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

murphaph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

I don't think you understand what Schengen does. You can get a visa to the Schengen zone; this does not mean immigration, it means short term visit/tourism. Work permits are still generally the business of the country of residence.

You can look on it as a larger scale version of the CTA if you like. In general, if you are not an EU citizen, and you want to work in Germany, you have to get a work permit for Germany. Not the Schengen zone. A Schengen visa is a travel/holiday/tourism permit, not an immigration/work/residence permit. There is not a Schengen visa that allows immigration in the sense of living somewhere permanently or to work. It is a visitor visa. I hope this is clear. It is not a residence permit or a work permit.

Rjd2

Lemming wrote: »

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.


.

Maybe, but reading the likes of the specator etc, its pretty obvious that the likes of Davis, Johnson, Pritti and a few others are building alliances and are scheming and undermining each other in the background. Some of the stuff between Johnson and Davis is toxic. I think this is him putting out the feelers at least for a Tory leadership run at least. I don't think he really cares what sort of Brexit the UK get whatsoever, as long as he doesn't get to much flack happy days.:eek:

briany wrote: »

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.

.

Both awful people who play up to the stereotypes of both of there sides in the wrong way, Julia way to reactionary and Self an incredibly arrogant patronising so and so, basically a tesco version of Bob Geldolf.

Although I did like him on shooting stars back in the day.:P

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

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.

The crteria was clearly defined prior to the referendum. That criteria was not met, so the legislation passed prior to the referendum was not enacted.

It's really quite simple.

Water John

Martin Wolf, Chief Economics commentator, Financial Times says; 'Brexit talks are going nowhere ATM'.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

Martin Wolf, Chief Economics commentator, Financial Times says; 'Brexit talks are going nowhere ATM'.

At this stage Britain should just default on WTO rules and leave. It might give some certainty. No doubt it would be painful for Ireland, but what do they care?

Good loser

briany wrote: »

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.

Did you hear Self quote the guy that said to Cameron

'Not even my golf club changes its rules on the basis of a simple majority'

Brewer fairly bristled at that.

Sand

There is some evidence that Brexit is leading to increased wages as supply of labour dries up. Polish workers wages at least.

https://www.ft.com/content/0e0a77f2-96df-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0

Gist of the article is Barfoots of Botley is running a 15% headcount shortage, and will have to reduce output of crops as it cant get the necessary staff to harvest them. The anti-foreigner mood music of Brexit and the fall in the value of sterling are dissuading Eastern European workers on whom the company relies. One of the managers is quoted as saying "This is the first time I've had to face this [in 30 years]. They're just not coming."

Barfoots have responded by raising wages and improving the accommodation with perks such as free wifi to try attract/retain Eastern European workers. Previously workers had to go into the local town to get internet access.

No evidence as yet that low skilled British workers are making up the difference.

Water John

If May had the gumption and fired Boris, at least he'd have some job to do. The potatoes need picking.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

If May had the gumption and fired Boris, at least he'd have some job to do. The potatoes need picking.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Her problem is that she shouldn't have appointed him in the first place. Now that he is there she cannot get rid of him as he will be able to shout very loudly from the backbenches if he is fired. She should have let him slip into obscurity after he decided not to run in the leadership election. She kept him in the spotlight.

Sand

Enzokk wrote: »

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Her problem is that she shouldn't have appointed him in the first place. Now that he is there she cannot get rid of him as he will be able to shout very loudly from the backbenches if he is fired. She should have let him slip into obscurity after he decided not to run in the leadership election. She kept him in the spotlight.

In fairness, appointing him was the right move from a purely Tory infighting perspective. The old phrase 'Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" comes to mind. May gave him the opportunity to speak. He has discredited himself over the past 12 months or so in his public role, with public fumbles and failures. If he had been left on the backbenches to snipe, and scheme and plot he might look positively competent in comparison. Then he could be dangerous.

As it is, the UK doesn't seem blessed with any great political figures in this generation in any party. I cant think of any impressive UK politician that is currently active.

Water John

Well it looks by The Times that Boris has misfired again and damaged himself with both sides.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Well it looks by The Times that Boris has misfired again and damaged himself with both sides.

As the saying goes, if Boris is the answer then you're asking the wrong question.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

I cant think of any impressive UK politician that is currently active.

I'd make a case for Nick Clegg though that'd be before the election. I'm reading David Laws' chronicle of the coalition government at the moment. Clegg warned Cameron against trying to get a deal from the EU before calling a referendum to placate his backbenchers. He then went on to correctly predict what would predict if the public voted Leave. He also speaks multiple European languages and has experience in trade law.

Billy86

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

So what happened to "Controlling the United Kingdom's border is a matter for the UK Government, not a matter for the European Union post-Brexit"? The UK is not in Schengen either nor has it ever been.

To be honest, your position is looking considerably less than honest right now.

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

In which case they won't in the UK with or without Brexit by your assessment, as the UK is not a member of Schengen. Meaning by your estimation, borders have nothing to do with Brexit... so why were you claiming they would be different post Brexit?

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

At this stage Britain should just default on WTO rules and leave.

But they can't "default" to WTO terms, that is part of their problem! Without support from the EU they will have problems getting their full membership approved, trade schedules etc.. that is probably the main reason they keep turning up in Brussels!

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

You clearly have not got a clue about how Schengen works. For example checks can and do occur throughout area not just on the borders. And unlike the UK, you are automatically assumed to be there illegally unless you can clearly identify yourself and justify your presence in the area. And that means you can show that you are either a tourist or have the necessary resident and/or employment permits.

Rjd2

Enzokk wrote: »

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Her problem is that she shouldn't have appointed him in the first place. Now that he is there she cannot get rid of him as he will be able to shout very loudly from the backbenches if he is fired. She should have let him slip into obscurity after he decided not to run in the leadership election. She kept him in the spotlight.

No, he'd have been a bigger pest on the backbenches with his numerous media contacts **** stirring all the time, May at least is able to keep an eye on him and actually make him to do some work. From all accounts he is not particularly happy with his current role, something which I am sure will break May's heart.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

Good morning!

Firstly - I've already acknowledged that EU citizens will be able to freely travel to the United Kingdom after Brexit. This is what the Government wants at every border not just in Ireland. Employment restrictions will be handled through quotas and employment checks.

Secondly - the CTA is a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and its crown dependencies. It isn't governed by the EU. Moreover, the CTA doesn't have common visa recognition. An Irish visa isn't sufficient for UK travel or vice versa. You can be deported if you enter the UK from Ireland without a valid UK visa. There's only two exceptions to this rule. There is common visa recognition for tourist visas issued to India and China.

Thirdly - if you're saying that the EU will have any say on who the United Kingdom allows into their jurisdiction and on what terms after Brexit you need to start backing this up with reasons why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - the CTA is a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and it's crown dependencies. It isn't governed by the EU. Moreover, the CTA doesn't have common visa recognition. An Irish visa isn't sufficient for UK travel or vice versa. You can be deported if you enter the UK from Ireland without a valid UK visa. There's only two exceptions to this rule. There is common visa recognition for tourist visas issued to India and China.

You can indeed by deported if you enter the UK from Ireland without a valid UK visa. The problems is detecting you in order to deport you.

The CTA has always provided a "back door" into the UK via Ireland (or into Ireland via the UK). The reason that this has been sustainable in practice is that Ireland and the UK have kept their visa/migration policies closely co-ordinated. The population of people entitled to enter Ireland but not the UK, or vice versa, has been small enough that the "leakage" facilitated by the CTA has been small enough to be manageable.

This calculation changes if Irish and UK visa/migration policies diverge.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - if you're saying that the EU will have any say on who the United Kingdom allows into their jurisdiction and on what terms after Brexit you need to start backing this up with reasons why.

The reason why will be the CTA. As long as the CTA exists, anyone who has a right to enter Ireland (and that includes people who have a legal right under EU law) will in practice be able to enter the UK via Ireland.

As regards EU nationals this doesn't matter hugely if the UK intends anyway to allow EU nationals a right of entry to the UK (as is likely). Where I think we run into tensions is with respect to third country nationals who may have rights under EU law (e.g. as family members or dependents of EU nationals) which are wider than the rights that UK law would afford them. As long as the CTA exists, that group will be able to evade controls on their entry into the UK by entering via Ireland.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can indeed by deported if you enter the UK from Ireland without a valid UK visa. The problems is detecting you in order to deport you.

The CTA has always provided a "back door" into the UK via Ireland (or into Ireland via the UK). The reason that this has been sustainable in practice is that Ireland and the UK have kept their visa/migration policies closely co-ordinated. The population of people entitled to enter Ireland but not the UK, or vice versa, has been small enough that the "leakage" facilitated by the CTA has been small enough to be manageable.

This calculation changes if Irish and UK visa/migration policies diverge.


The reason why will be the CTA. As long as the CTA exists, anyone who has a right to enter Ireland (and that includes people who have a legal right under EU law) will in practice be able to enter the UK via Ireland.

As regards EU nationals this doesn't matter hugely if the UK intends anyway to allow EU nationals a right of entry to the UK (as is likely). Where I think we run into tensions is with respect to third country nationals who may have rights under EU law (e.g. as family members or dependents of EU nationals) which are wider than the rights that UK law would afford them. As long as the CTA exists, that group will be able to evade controls on their entry into the UK by entering via Ireland.

Good morning!

I agree with all of this.

The reason why I'm responding in this manner is because there are some posters who are suggesting that the EU will have control over the UK's border policy after Brexit.

This isn't true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree with all of this.

The reason why I'm responding in this manner is because there are some posters who are suggesting that the EU will have control over the UK's border policy after Brexit.

This isn't true.

The EU will have some (practical) control over the EU's border policy, e.g with respect to third country nationals enjoying rights under EU law.

That degree control will be increased if Ireland joins the Schengen group (and of course the calculation as to the desirability of Ireland joining the Schengen group will itself be affected by Brexit and how the Brexit-related border issues play out) or if EU visa/migration policies are otherwise more closely aligned than at present.

The bottom line, of course, is that the UK can always end the CTA at any time it chooses. (As can Ireland.) In that sense the UK can always recover control of its borders (at least in this respect).

The question is whether the maintenance of the CTA is consistent with the degree of border control that the UK wishes to exercise. This is one of the many tensions in the UK's states aspirations that the UK is reluctant to explore, or even acknowledge.

But this degree of cognitive dissonance can't persist for ever; there are already signs that the wheels are starting to come off the "everything will be fine!" attitude to Brexit.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Again - If Ireland joins Schengen the UK is still perfectly entitled to decide who enters the UK and on what terms. It isn't true to say that Ireland or the EU can insist on who the UK allows through its borders.

Ireland and the EU can make their own decisions about their borders but not about the UK border and who can enter.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - If Ireland joins Schengen the UK is still perfectly entitled to decide who enters the UK and on what terms. It isn't true to say that Ireland or the EU can insist on who the UK allows through its borders.

I think the point is that in order to make that decision effectively, the UK may have to end the CTA.

As long as the CTA is maintained, then whoever controls Irish visa/migration policy - whether that's Ireland, or the EU, or some combination of the two - effectively decides who can enter the UK via Ireland. (And vice versa, of course.)

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

At this stage Britain should just default on WTO rules and leave. It might give some certainty. No doubt it would be painful for Ireland, but what do they care?

They literally cannot do this or there will be complete chaos. Mass flight cancellations, trucks at ports with food rotting inside, decimation of huge numbers of service jobs, no access to nuclear isotopes even for medicine, etc.

No deal is an appalling vista for everyone but especially the UK.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the point is that in order to make that decision effectively, the UK may have to end the CTA.

As long as the CTA is maintained, then whoever controls Irish visa/migration policy - whether that's Ireland, or the EU, or some combination of the two - effectively decides who can enter the UK via Ireland. (And vice versa, of course.)

Good morning!

This is phrasing it in the wrong way. Remember, the CTA is a common travel area containing the United Kingdom, some of her crown dependencies (namely the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and Ireland.

If Ireland decides to leave the CTA that is Ireland's decision. I think Ireland would be the poorer for it. I've yet to see any evidence that the CTA is subject to Brussels.

The CTA will still exist, it will simply be a free travel area for the the crown dependencies and the United Kingdom.

Obviously, Ireland has control over who enters the Republic of Ireland. That's a given. I don't know why you mention this as if it's a surprise. Obviously movement between the border of the Republic and Northern Ireland can only happen by those who are permitted to enter the Republic in the first place, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that Ireland decides who can enter the UK. People can fly in or enter via another frontier.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

The CTA worked because Ireland and the UK have very similar regimes (intentionally so!) when it comes to third countries. Indeed the respective immigration services share data about third country arrivals.

Data sharing about EU citizens will not happen obviously.

It will be impossible to tell a naturalised Pole apart from an illegal one (UK has no ID card for all).

Even today there is a huge black economy labour market. Now a few hundred million people who can enter the UK completely undetected via Ireland will also become illegals.

And we're supposed to believe the Home Office can police this?

If you can't control your border effectively you can just give up. There will be so many EU illegals working in the UK that your chances of getting caught will be quite low as there simply won't be the manpower to do anywhere near enough spot checks.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

The CTA worked because Ireland and the UK have very similar regimes (intentionally so!) when it comes to third countries. Indeed the respective immigration services share data about third country arrivals.

Data sharing about EU citizens will not happen obviously.

It will be impossible to tell a naturalised Pole apart from an illegal one (UK has no ID card for all).

Even today there is a huge black economy labour market. Now a few hundred million people who can enter the UK completely undetected via Ireland will also become illegals.

And we're supposed to believe the Home Office can police this?

If you can't control your border effectively you can just give up. There will be so many EU illegals working in the UK that your chances of getting caught will be quite low as there simply won't be the manpower to do anywhere near enough spot checks.

Good morning!

Again - I feel you're missing the point.

Free travel for EU citizens is what the UK desires post-Brexit (on any border with the EU). Checks will happen in respect to employment. That's what the UK Government are deciding to do. How effective or not that happens to be is a matter for the UK Government, not for the EU or anyone else.

EDIT: Again, the ID card myth. Every national in the EU (asides from Irish) will have to apply for "settled status" which issues a biometric ID. This is how the UK Border Force deal with non-EU illegal immigration already. It's remit will be simply extended to EU nationals. I've been through this already very clearly on this thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is phrasing it in the wrong way. Remember, the CTA is a common travel area containing the United Kingdom, some of her crown dependencies (namely the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and Ireland.

If Ireland decides to leave the CTA that is Ireland's decision. I think Ireland would be the poorer for it . . .

I don’t think there’s any likelihood that Ireland will try to leave the CTA. This “control of the borders” thing is a UK preoccupation.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CTA will still exist, it will simply be a free travel area for the the crown dependencies and the United Kingdom.

Well, even if the crown dependencies were to leave it, the CTA would still exist within the UK. And even if Northern Ireland were to leave it, the CTA would still exist within Great Britain. And you can continue reducing the size of the CTA as much as you want, and say that the CTA still exists in the remaining territory. So what? For present purposes what matters is whether a CTA which includes part of the EU is consistent with the UK’s objectives as regards border control.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously, Ireland has control over who enters the Republic of Ireland. That's a given.

No, it isn’t. Ireland doesn’t have control over who enters the Republic of Ireland. Irish law is subordinated to EU law on this issue. That’s rather the point.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously movement between the border of the Republic and Northern Ireland can only happen by those who are permitted to enter the Republic in the first place, and vice versa.

Yes, but think about the consequences of this. Since the UK doesn’t control who gets to enter the Republic, maintaining the CTA with the Republic diminishes the UK’s control over its own borders. As long as the CTA is maintained, entry of third country nationals into the UK across the land border with the Republic is in fact controlled by the Republic (via which third country nationals are permitted to enter the Republic), which in turn is subject to any relevant requirements of EU law. And the fact that so many Brexit supporters seem not to grasp this or to be in denial about it is worrying. The UK’s commitment to maintain the CTA isn’t something in which Ireland can take a lot of comfort if they haven’t grasped the degree to which this punches a hole in the objective of controlling the UK’s borders. When reality finally sinks in, we may find that the UK is less committed to the CTA with Ireland than they say they are at present.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - I've already acknowledged that EU citizens will be able to freely travel to the United Kingdom after Brexit. This is what the Government wants at every border not just in Ireland. Employment restrictions will be handled through quotas and employment checks.

We were just talking about that with my wife this weekend. Do you have any first-hand experience of the existing provisions about non-EU nationals in that regard?

I only ask, because you consistently raise this point as some sort of "employers will do all the vetting, it'll all be fine" slam-dunk answer, but the evidence to date is that most British employers (which is SMEs without dedicated HR, not large groups will dedicated HR) still haven't got the foggiest in the first place, and many of those which do (particularly in the security services industry) have seen their staff-related overheads balloon out of all proportion, to the extent that they simply can't afford to fulfil staffing requirements.

My wife is a qualified SIA vetter. She's in charge of doing exactly that: conducting full due diligence on a potential employee's immigration status and right to work in the country (besides actual ID confirmation, criminal record <anywhere>, length of time in-country, etc: the full and provable 'where have you been and what have you done for the past 5 years' to the date of job application). Let me tell you that for anyone outside the EU -and particularly for those originating from 'at risk places' (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, continental Africa) it routinely takes her 2 to 3 days at least. Per would-be employee. Employed on minimum wage or thereabouts.

The attrition rate -after interview and job offer- currently stands around 50% (50% of applicants can't be fully vetted within an economical timeframe -if at all- and so aren't employed eventually). Most often because the home country's consular services/local authorities haven't got confirmatory data, or don't want to send the data to a private UK company, or 'forget' to send it.

They're all in the UK applying for jobs just the same. When the ACS-registered employer doesn't take them, another not bothering with industry normalisation will. And there's plenty of those, both within and outside the private security sector.

Do you genuinely think extending the principle to all industry sectors in the UK for EU nationals as well is going to work?

By the way, the vetting qualification (and training for same) of my anecdotal, first-hand experience is SIA-specific: there is no involvement from the HO or HMBF whatsoever, nor any ongoing standardisation or normalisation of that training, qualification and 'job' across sectors.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but think about the consequences of this. Since the UK doesn’t control who gets to enter the Republic, maintaining the CTA with the Republic diminishes the UK’s control over its own borders. As long as the CTA is maintained, entry of third country nationals into the UK across the land border with the Republic is in fact controlled by the Republic (via which third country nationals are permitted to enter the Republic), which in turn is subject to any relevant requirements of EU law. And the fact that so many Brexit supporters seem not to grasp this or to be in denial about it is worrying. The UK’s commitment to maintain the CTA isn’t something in which Ireland can take a lot of comfort if they haven’t grasped the degree to which this punches a hole in the objective of controlling the UK’s borders. When reality finally sinks in, we may find that the UK is less committed to the CTA with Ireland than they say they are at present.

Good evening!

If you're a national not permitted to enter Ireland, you can enter the UK via another border, or fly in if you are eligible. Again, this doesn't have an impact on who can enter the UK. The UK will have full control over who can enter the UK after Brexit.

Claiming that Ireland has control of its frontier and that means only people who are eligible to enter Ireland can enter the UK through the Ireland border is an obvious fact that I am well aware of.

My point is that the EU will have no control whatsoever over who is entitled to enter the UK after Brexit. That will be a matter for Parliament.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you're a national not permitted to enter Ireland, you can enter the UK via another border, or fly in if you are eligible. Again, this doesn't have an impact on who can enter the UK. The UK will have full control over who can enter the UK after Brexit.

The problem, solo, is not the nationals who are not permitted to enter Ireland. It's the nationals who are permitted to enter Ireland. The existence of a CTA covering the UK and Ireland means that there's no effective mechanismfor keeping them out of the UK. Why is this so hard to grasp?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Claiming that Ireland has control of its frontier and that means only people who are eligible to enter Ireland can enter the UK through the Ireland border is an obvious fact that I am well aware of.

But whose implications you are determined to ignore. Take the extranous word "only" out of your sentence above and read this bit back to yourself:

". . . people who are eligible to enter Ireland can enter the UK through the Ireland border . . ."

Given that the UK has no control over who is eligible to enter Ireland, and given your own statement just quoted, how can you say that the UK will effectively control who enters the UK?

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that the EU will have no control whatsoever over who is entitled to enter the UK after Brexit. That will be a matter for Parliament.

The EU may have no control over who is entitled to enter the UK, but as long as as the CTA is maintained, it will have some control over who can enter the UK. EU law may confer a right to enter Ireland, and the CTA will enable someone who has exercised that right to enter the UK.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem, solo, is not the nationals who are not permitted to enter Ireland. It's the nationals who are permitted to enter Ireland. The existence of a CTA covering the UK and Ireland means that there's no effective mechanismfor keeping them out of the UK. Why is this so hard to grasp?

It isn't hard to grasp at all!

I've mentioned specifically that the UK will permit free travel into the UK on every border from the European Union after Brexit. The checks for eligibility to work will be secondary employment checks.

As for how effective these checks are, that is a matter for the UK Government and Parliament. It isn't a matter for the European Union.

Why is that position so hard to grasp?

Peregrinus wrote: »

But whose implications you are determined to ignore. Take the extranous word "only" out of your sentence above and read this bit back to yourself:

". . . people who are eligible to enter Ireland can enter the UK through the Ireland border . . ."

Given that the UK has no control over who is eligible to enter Ireland, and given your own statement just quoted, how can you say that the UK will effectively control who enters the UK?

Please read what I have said above. I've repeated this several times to you and others on the thread. There is no point repeating it yet another time.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU will have no control over who is entitled to enter the UK, but as long as as the CTA is maintained, it will have some control over who can enter the UK. EU law may confer a right to enter Ireland, and the CTA will enable someone who has exercised that right to enter the UK.

The bolded bit of your post is all I have been trying to say.

It isn't true to say that Ireland has control over who can enter the UK. If someone enters the UK illegally from Ireland they can and will be deported. It is a secondary employment check rather than a travel check because the UK has decided to continue allowing free travel into the UK from the European Union.

If you work illegally in the UK and if you're caught by the UK Border Force and you will be removed irrespective of how you entered.

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't hard to grasp at all!

I've mentioned specifically that the UK will permit free travel into the UK on every border from the European Union after Brexit. The checks for eligibility to work will be secondary employment checks.

As for how effective these checks are, that is a matter for the UK Government and Parliament. It isn't a matter for the European Union.

Why is that position so hard to grasp?

That position is easy to grasp but, unfortunately, wrong.

The truth is otherwise. The UK proposal is that, post-Brexit, EU nationals will be free to enter the UK on every border from the EU. Others arriving at those borders will not necessarily be free. This means that (a) everyone arriving at the border will be liable to inspection to establish whether they hold a nationality which gives them a right of entry, and (b) those who don’t hold such a nationality (and don’t hold an appropriate UK visa) are liable to be turned away.

So, not “free travel into the UK on every border from the European Union” at all, then.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please read what I have said above. I've repeated this several times to you and others on the thread. There is no point repeating it yet another time.

There wasn’t much point in saying it the first time, if it wasn’t true.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't true to say that Ireland has control over who can enter the UK. If someone enters the UK illegally from Ireland they can and will be deported. It is a secondary employment check rather than a travel check because the UK has decided to continue allowing free travel into the UK from the European Union.

If you work illegally in the UK and if you're caught by the UK Border Force and you will be removed irrespective of how you entered.

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

It’s quite easy to grasp. It’s just completely different from controlling the border, which was your initial claim, and which is a common Brexity slogan.

What you’re now saying is that the UK won’t be controlling its borders (at all!); it will be relying on labour market regulation to identify and remove those who work without authorisation (and, by implication, it won’t be bothered about those who don’t work, or who work informally).

We could have an entirely separate discussion about how effective that’s likely to be. But, disregarding that, there’s a couple of points that we could make at this stage.

First, it’s absolutely not border control . It’s an alternative to border control. If you think Brexit voters voted to “take back control of our borders”, then you’ll expect them to be spitting with fury at this.

Secondly, it would be a complete volte-face for the UK which, historically, as an island nation has always found border control to be the most effective way to control migration. Even while in the EU, the UK polices its borders with other EU countries (except Ireland). The notion that they would stop doing this at Brexit is a startling one.

Thirdly, as will already be apparent, I don’t think the UK intention is as you say. The UK will police its borders, and will turn away at the border those whom it does not wish to admit (pretty much as it does at present). It will supplement this by endeavouring to identify those who infringe the conditions of their admission to the UK (e.g. by taking up employment). It does this at present as well, but obviously the task becomes more challenging if the population of those admitted to the UK but not permitted to work, settle, etc becomes larger. And identifying these people if they have crossed by the Irish border and the UK doesn’t even know they have entered in the first place is obviously going to be trickier. And deporting them is fairly pointless if they can fly to Dublin and come right back in again.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post, expect brief responses.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That position is easy to grasp but, unfortunately, wrong.

The truth is otherwise. The UK proposal is that, post-Brexit, EU nationals will be free to enter the UK on every border from the EU. Others arriving at those borders will not necessarily be free. This means that (a) everyone arriving at the border will be liable to inspection to establish whether they hold a nationality which gives them a right of entry, and (b) those who don’t hold such a nationality (and don’t hold an appropriate UK visa) are liable to be turned away.

So, not “free travel into the UK on every border from the European Union” at all, then.

The UK are proposing visa-free travel for all EU citizens, on any UK border.

Non-EU nationals will be subject to the same controls as today.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There wasn’t much point in saying it the first time, if it wasn’t true.

It is true, read the article and the UK position.

I'm not particularly bothered to engage in pedantry. My point was this. The EU will not have any control over who is eligible to enter the UK after Brexit.

That was all I was saying.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are proposing visa-free travel for all EU citizens, on any UK border.

Non-EU nationals will be subject to the same controls as today.

Th ebit that I have bolded makes this statement radically different from your earlier claim:

". . . the UK will permit free travel into the UK on every border from the European Union after Brexit . . ."

The won't be permitting free travel into the UK on every border from the EU; just on the Irish border (if the CTA is maintained). On every other border, there'll be passport controls.

And pointing out that EU citizens will have visa-free travel to the UK does nothing to address the issues raised by the CTA. I pointed out earlier that the CTA principally raises issues with respect to third-country nationals who have a right to enter the EU but not a right to enter the UK. (Though, since you make the point that EU nationals who engage in work will be liable to deportation, it does raise issues with respect to them to. Having been deported, it will be very easy for them to return.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK’s commitment to maintain the CTA isn’t something in which Ireland can take a lot of comfort

I don't believe the UK has committed to maintaining the CTA.

I believe they have said they would like to maintain the CTA, just as they want the border to be as frictionless "as possible" for goods.

I think this is just a setup so that when when negotiations collapse (because the UK are asking for contradictory things) they will be bringing in a hard border and blaming the EU.

breatheme

When has the UK said that they would permit free travel to all EU Citizens? And would that mean free travel on their ID cards without a passport? I've read nothing of the sort, in fact, the opposite has been posted here.

oppenheimer1

Just to return to BoJo and his article in the Telegraph. It's an interesting strategy he's playing to get the leadership. First of all, the reason he was brought in as Foreign Sec was to stop him plotting from the back benches - the idea being he would spend so much time in the air and at meetings that he wouldn't have time. Now he sees his chance to get out of that role. So we have TM going to make a speech where it is expected in some quarters that she will soften her stance on the bill land transition. Now that BoJo has put down his marker and she's been too weak to sack him, if the above softening transpires he will resign (in glory) and go for the leadership at the conference.

Professor Moriarty

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Just to return to BoJo and his article in the Telegraph. It's an interesting strategy he's playing to get the leadership. First of all, the reason he was brought in as Foreign Sec was to stop him plotting from the back benches - the idea being he would spend so much time in the air and at meetings that he wouldn't have time. Now he sees his chance to get out of that role. So we have TM going to make a speech where it is expected in some quarters that she will soften her stance on the bill land transition. Now that BoJo has put down his marker and she's been too weak to sack him, if the above softening transpires he will resign (in glory) and go for the leadership at the conference.

Interestingly, the bookies seem to have Corbyn (average 4/1) and Davies ( average 5/1) ahead of Johnson (average 8/1) as the next PM.

In the interim, Johnson can do what he likes. May is a lame duck without authority, gravitas or support. If ever a politician proved the Peter Principle, it is May.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are proposing visa-free travel for all EU citizens, on any UK border.

Non-EU nationals will be subject to the same controls as today.

Yes, technically the UK will control who can enter the country as they decide who is able to enter with or without a visa. But when you take away border checks how do you control who comes into the country? This is what the CTA does, it takes away border checks between Ireland and the UK.

An example, as a South African you can enter Ireland for 90 days without a visa. If you want to go to the UK you need a visa, even if it is to transit to another country, so severe restrictions. How does the UK control who comes in from South Africa to the UK via the CTA? Its easy to bypass the system as a South African to not need a visa to travel to the UK. DO you think people that want to go to the UK but finds tougher measures will not make use of the CTA after Brexit?

In any case you are talking about who makes decisions, I am asking about how it will be implemented. You are correct, but you are avoiding the questions being asked about how it can be implemented.