The founder of Kids Company has said it will have to "abandon a lot of children" as she confirmed its closure.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
For me it's straightforward. The status quo is unsatisfactory. If Cameron can't make it satisfactory (and I doubt that he will) then I'll vote No. One can always agonise about alternative, but one would never take a decision of any consequence if that was the case.
I'm quite certain you'll vote No, Sean!
However, you've got to convince 50% of those who vote to join you. The chances of that are remote, if the alternative looks muddled, inconsistent, unattainable, economically highly risky, and not even very different - in terms of issues such as immigration - from the current position.
The core problem for the Out side is that either they try to pin down the alternative, in which case they'll alienate a chunk of their potential supporters, or else they let the In side paint it for them. As I've been saying for yonks, they should have started three years ago on developing a strategy to address this extremely tricky conundrum, but nothing of substance has been done.
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
I agree "No" is going to be very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument. To stand a chance of winning, it has to counter that. It needs to do two things. (1) Emphasise that "Yes" is not an endorsement of the status quo, but an endorsement of "ever closer union", and of the proposals set out in the Five Presidents' Report. (2) Uncertainty may have to be accepted as the price for a once in a generation chance to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Cameron has waived the veto in respect of three treaty changes while PM, and secured nothing for Britain in return for those waivers. Now, with the best hand of cards any PM has had since Wilson, i.e. a threat of an exit referendum and leading an out campaign if he didn't get major change, he has secured nothing. If renegotiation wasn't possible in these circumstances, when will it be? 2055?
I likewise expect the most dishonest campaign from "Yes" in the history of British politics.
The BBC has announced a boycott of Rangers matches and press conferences after one of its reporters was told to stay away from Ibrox. ............
A bit puzzling as the BBC did nothing when Ferguson effectively banned some of them and even did not turn up himself for post match interviews for a while. (Think it was over the investigation into his son but I might be wrong on the reason).
What is weird about this tale is that this women was prosecuted for brothel full of underage runaway girls, but I thought all the suggestions were that if anything Heath wasn't into females.
The founder of Kids Company has said it will have to "abandon a lot of children" as she confirmed its closure.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
I agree "No" is going to be very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument. To stand a chance of winning, it has to counter that. It needs to do two things. (1) Emphasise that "Yes" is not an endorsement of the status quo, but an endorsement of "ever closer union", and of the proposals set out in the Five Presidents' Report. (2) Uncertainty may have to be accepted as the price for a once in a generation chance to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Cameron has waived the veto in respect of three treaty changes while PM, and secured nothing for Britain in return for those waivers. Now, with the best hand of cards any PM has had since Wilson, i.e. a threat of an exit referendum and leading an out campaign if he didn't get major change, he has secured nothing. If renegotiation wasn't possible in these circumstances, when will it be? 2055?
I likewise expect the most dishonest campaign from "Yes" in the history of British politics.
I genuinely don't know which way I will vote, but am somewhat dreading the campaign already as I am sure that it will produce a great deal of heat, and very little light.
British far-left activists are “manipulating migrants” to stage mass intrusions into the Channel Tunnel and provoke violent clashes with security forces they depict as “savages”, French police have claimed.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Not immediately. However, being outside the EU would make it easier to rewrite our laws on asylum to reduce the baleful impact of Article 8 (Right to a Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR is of course distinct from EU membership, but people like Dominic Grieve argue convincingly that if we were to try to do this at present, the European Court of Justice would force us to comply with the ECHR in any case, now that the EU is a signatory to it.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
The founder of Kids Company has said it will have to "abandon a lot of children" as she confirmed its closure.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
A stronger message to who?
The idea that illegal migrants would be deterred by 'stronger messages', or by Sean's proposed legal nuancing on Article 8 of the ECHR, is fanciful.
The answer to Pulpstar's question is of course very simple: No.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The founder of Kids Company has said it will have to "abandon a lot of children" as she confirmed its closure.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
Not immediately. However, being outside the EU would make it easier to rewrite our laws on asylum to reduce the baleful impact of Article 8 (Right to a Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR is of course distinct from EU membership, but people like Dominic Grieve argue convincingly that if we were to try to do this at present, the European Court of Justice would force us to comply with the ECHR in any case, now that the EU is a signatory to it.
The other point is that when we are implementing the Dublin Regulation (i.e. returning asylum seekers to the first safe country in Europe in which they set foot), we are acting within the scope of EU law, so article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is in similar terms to article 8 ECHR, but unlike article 8 ECHR can override British immigration legislation) applies. Other provisions of the Charter, such as article 3(1), which creates a right to respect for mental and physical integrity, will no doubt be taken up to prevent removal in due course. It should be noted that the Court of Justice has held again that EU accession to the ECHR is incompatible with the treaties (despite being required by them!), and so the ECHR takes effect in EU law at the moment via the doctrine of "general principles" and by similar provisions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
A stronger message to who?
The idea that illegal migrants would be deterred by 'stronger messages', or by Sean's proposed legal nuancing on Article 8 of the ECHR, is fanciful.
The answer to Pulpstar's question is of course very simple: No.
The way in which Article 8 is interpreted significantly impairs the government's ability to deport failed asylum seekers.
It is at any rate better to attempt to do something, rather than just shrug and say nothing can be done.
The founder of Kids Company has said it will have to "abandon a lot of children" as she confirmed its closure.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
Tugging the heartstrings is an understandable tactic, but does little to allay concerns about poor management.
Widow Batman-Twanky playing every trick in the book to deflect blame, with the weeping and 'won't somebody think of the children?' line.
How about the £40 million of taxpayers cash you've spent?
How many inner city schools would that pay for, I wonder? (I'm not SMT so I have very little idea about the actual funding model of schools.) I'm guessing it would pay all costs for 3-4 for a whole year, maybe more than that. Was it really money well spent?
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
I agree "No" is going to be very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument. To stand a chance of winning, it has to counter that. It needs to do two things. (1) Emphasise that "Yes" is not an endorsement of the status quo, but an endorsement of "ever closer union", and of the proposals set out in the Five Presidents' Report. (2) Uncertainty may have to be accepted as the price for a once in a generation chance to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Cameron has waived the veto in respect of three treaty changes while PM, and secured nothing for Britain in return for those waivers. Now, with the best hand of cards any PM has had since Wilson, i.e. a threat of an exit referendum and leading an out campaign if he didn't get major change, he has secured nothing. If renegotiation wasn't possible in these circumstances, when will it be? 2055?
I likewise expect the most dishonest campaign from "Yes" in the history of British politics.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations. 'Uncertainty' is another way of saying to people in Sunderland - 'do you want your jobs exported to Spain and Bulgaria'?
Half a dozen holiday news stories, in oder of importance:
1. Will Corbyn win the labour leadership? 2. Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kids Company and 3 million smackers to the wind. 3. Cameron and the swarm. Cockroaches, anyone? 4. The London tube drivers strike: can these trains really run without drivers? 5. Edward Heaths private life, is he one of them? 6. Tim Farron visits Calais refugees, Obviously seeking L/Dem recruits.
It is at any rate better to attempt to do something, rather than just shrug and say nothing can be done.
'Something must be done, this is something'.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations.
"Ever closer union" is demanded by the preambles to both TEU and TFEU, and by article 1 of TEU. You can only prevent the United Kingdom being signed up to ever closer union by a treaty amendment under article 48(2) of TEU, which would require an intergovernmental conference, unanimous agreement by the heads of government, and ratification by every member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Do you really think Cameron will have got that by the date of the referendum? The referendum will be a clear choice between "ever closer union" and "out".
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
I agree "No" is going to be very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument. To stand a chance of winning, it has to counter that. It needs to do two things. (1) Emphasise that "Yes" is not an endorsement of the status quo, but an endorsement of "ever closer union", and of the proposals set out in the Five Presidents' Report. (2) Uncertainty may have to be accepted as the price for a once in a generation chance to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Cameron has waived the veto in respect of three treaty changes while PM, and secured nothing for Britain in return for those waivers. Now, with the best hand of cards any PM has had since Wilson, i.e. a threat of an exit referendum and leading an out campaign if he didn't get major change, he has secured nothing. If renegotiation wasn't possible in these circumstances, when will it be? 2055?
I likewise expect the most dishonest campaign from "Yes" in the history of British politics.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations. 'Uncertainty' is another way of saying to people in Sunderland - 'do you want your jobs exported to Spain and Bulgaria'?
The only way that the UK could avoid being part of an "Ever Closer Union" is through Treaty change. And, that's not even up for discussion. What we may get is some kind of gentlemens' agreement that we won't be part of Ever Closer Union. But, a gentlemens' agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on, legally speaking.
As to job issue, the Survation poll shows that "three million lost jobs" is indeed a potent scare tactic. It's bollocks, but it is potent.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Agreed. Even if we successfully deported more asylum seekers, it is unlikely it would have any affect on the flow of migrants. One thing I do not understand is why the government hasn't sued France in the Court of Justice for allowing or failing to prevent third parties in their jurisdiction from obstructing the free movement of goods. The French government have repeated form on this front.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
A stronger message to who?
The idea that illegal migrants would be deterred by 'stronger messages', or by Sean's proposed legal nuancing on Article 8 of the ECHR, is fanciful.
The answer to Pulpstar's question is of course very simple: No.
The way in which Article 8 is interpreted significantly impairs the government's ability to deport failed asylum seekers.
It is at any rate better to attempt to do something, rather than just shrug and say nothing can be done.
Some interesting background on the last 15 years on the "official" asylum figures, table 7 is the one which caught my eye:
Half a dozen holiday news stories, in oder of importance:
1. Will Corbyn win the labour leadership? 2. Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kids Company and 3 million smackers to the wind. 3. Cameron and the swarm. Cockroaches, anyone? 4. The London tube drivers strike: can these trains really run without drivers? 5. Edward Heaths private life, is he one of them? 6. Tim Farron visits Calais refugees, Obviously seeking L/Dem recruits.
Number 6,tell me this isn't true,Germany have been a soft touch on the so called asylum seekers (most proberly economic migrants)that over 70 thousand in one month ,now we hear the army has to be brought out.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Agreed. Even if we successfully deported more asylum seekers, it is unlikely it would have any affect on the flow of migrants. One thing I do not understand is why the government hasn't sued France in the Court of Justice for allowing or failing to prevent third parties in their jurisdiction from obstructing the free movement of goods. The French government have repeated form on this front.
What I don't understand is why all these would-be immigrants to Britain don't simply stay where they first arrive & become EU citizens there. Then they can come to Britain quite legally. Why risk your life for illegality?
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Agreed. Even if we successfully deported more asylum seekers, it is unlikely it would have any affect on the flow of migrants. One thing I do not understand is why the government hasn't sued France in the Court of Justice for allowing or failing to prevent third parties in their jurisdiction from obstructing the free movement of goods. The French government have repeated form on this front.
What I don't understand is why all these would-be immigrants to Britain don't simply stay where they first arrive & become EU citizens there. Then they can come to Britain quite legally. Why risk your life for illegality?
Half a dozen holiday news stories, in oder of importance:
1. Will Corbyn win the labour leadership? 2. Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kids Company and 3 million smackers to the wind. 3. Cameron and the swarm. Cockroaches, anyone? 4. The London tube drivers strike: can these trains really run without drivers? 5. Edward Heaths private life, is he one of them? 6. Tim Farron visits Calais refugees, Obviously seeking L/Dem recruits.
On four, I wonder what fraction of your underground ticket goes on wages?
"No" should campaign on the basis a vote for it is simply to reject Cameron's renegotation. Article 50 TEU allows a withdrawal agreement to be negotiated in two years which prima facie would bind the whole EU, which does not require ratification by the member states, and is agreed by QMV with the Parliament's consent. Admittedly this would involve the risk of leaving in two years with nothing agreed, but it is manifestly easier to get a workable agreement in the necessary time than by joining EFTA and then the EEA or renegotiating our membership from within (both of which require unanimity and ratification). If the UK does not want to be in either the EU or the EEA, but wants something more than the WTO rules, then it has to reach some sort of bespoke agreement with the EU. Article 50 offers the best means of getting it and getting it quickly.
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
It depends on the new terms. But since they will be clear enough - whether people like them or not -and the future of anything 'out' will be by definition uncertain, confused and chaotic, then the campaigns will define themselves. Once again I repeat - the Eurozone is inevitably going to an ever closer political monetary and fiscal union. We do not want to be part of that, form good or ill. So we are going to be in a more distant orbit to the EU one way or another. Being in that distant orbit or being in the EEA will not make much difference. Both will involve free movement of Labour which so seems to energise the kipperati. However -and again I repeat myself - if we just walk out of the EU without first getting favourable terms then there is a clear chance that as part of any subsequent deal we would have to join Schengen.
With massive trading blocks like USA, India, China, EU and Russia all looking to get the best for themselves I wonder what there is for the UK being outside of the EU. I shrug my shoulders - it may be better - but I cannot be bothered to get my micrometer out to measure it.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations.
"Ever closer union" is demanded by the preambles to both TEU and TFEU, and by article 1 of TEU. You can only prevent the United Kingdom being signed up to ever closer union by a treaty amendment under article 48(2) of TEU, which would require an intergovernmental conference, unanimous agreement by the heads of government, and ratification by every member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Do you really think Cameron will have got that by the date of the referendum? The referendum will be a clear choice between "ever closer union" and "out".
Whether we are in it or not, there is an urgent need for the EU to sort out the Eurozone/the Rest issue.
The Eurozone is going to keep integrating, those who are not in the Eurozone have - effectively - chosen to get off the integration bus.
If non Eurozone countries are to remain in the EU - and I mean principally those who are unlikely to ever join - such as ourselves, Denmark and Sweden, then there needs to be proper treaty change.
I don't think the EU has that degree of flexibility. I think life will become increasingly intolerable for non Eurozone members, simply because - to keep the Eurozone together - the Eurozone must continue to integrate, against the wishes of those on the outside.
What I don't understand is why all these would-be immigrants to Britain don't simply stay where they first arrive & become EU citizens there. Then they can come to Britain quite legally. Why risk your life for illegality?
It is quite possible that the Italian and Greek governments will simply start granting asylum seekers in their jurisdictions citizenship as a matter of course, at which point, they will have the right to reside in the UK as EU citizens.
Until that happens, it is still a lengthy process to become an EU citizen. You have to apply for asylum, be accepted, and then fulfil other criteria for citizenship, e.g residence for several years. The processing of asylum applications in Greece in the last decade, for example, has made the Home Office look like a model of efficiency. It is a process which might take significantly more than a decade. It is unsurprising that many are prepared to gamble.
I don't think the EU has that degree of flexibility. I think life will become increasingly intolerable for non Eurozone members, simply because - to keep the Eurozone together - the Eurozone must continue to integrate, against the wishes of those on the outside.
That remains to be seen - personally I'm more optimistic - but in any case it's not clear to me that leaving the EU would help very much. The Eurozone will still continue integrating, and we will still - in any even vaguely plausible scenario - still be subject, through a trading treaty, to many of its decisions. In particular, financial and other business services can't simply ignore the Eurozone, and if an increasingly integrated Eurozone decides to impose rules or take business away from us, there'd be little we could do. It would be like Canada's relationship to the US, pre-NAFTA.
That being the case, leaving altogether - in which case we'd have zero say and zero veto power - doesn't look attractive.
I'm open to being persuaded the other way, but I haven't seen any coherent answer to this point, or indeed much acknowledgement that it's an issue, from the Out side.
Isn't that with Labour voters rather than the public?
It also gives a poll for "Conservatives leaning left" (i.e. presumably people who might be swayed to vote Labour) - Burnham is also ahead with them, albeit by a slimmer margin.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
But renationalisation doesn't cos anything. No-one supporting it is suggesting we early terminate the franchises, the government would simply not put them up for tender when they expired.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations.
"Ever closer union" is demanded by the preambles to both TEU and TFEU, and by article 1 of TEU. You can only prevent the United Kingdom being signed up to ever closer union by a treaty amendment under article 48(2) of TEU, which would require an intergovernmental conference, unanimous agreement by the heads of government, and ratification by every member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Do you really think Cameron will have got that by the date of the referendum? The referendum will be a clear choice between "ever closer union" and "out".
You can talk rubbish (ie meaningless clauses that French farmers and dockers even now can defy with impunity) for as long as you like, it will not cover up your rubbish. What is demanded now and what Britain ends up being part of is quite different. https://euobserver.com/news/123487 ''He also called for the removal of the phrase referring to “ever closer union”, in the preamble of the EU treaty. "It may appeal to some countries. But it is not right for Britain, and we must ensure we are no longer subject to it," said Cameron.''
While we are talking betting I've had a nice email from paddy power letting me know that my account that was closed in 2011 has £181.36 in it and asking if I wanted it!
They were going to start charging 10 Euros a month or 10% of balance (Whichever was bigger) if I didn't withdraw it by Aug 31...
On the one hand that is an absolute liberty, on the other, fair play to them for mailing me.. I had no way of knowing as I cant login and didn't even know I had a PP account in my own name
Half a dozen holiday news stories, in oder of importance:
1. Will Corbyn win the labour leadership? 2. Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kids Company and 3 million smackers to the wind. 3. Cameron and the swarm. Cockroaches, anyone? 4. The London tube drivers strike: can these trains really run without drivers? 5. Edward Heaths private life, is he one of them? 6. Tim Farron visits Calais refugees, Obviously seeking L/Dem recruits.
On 4) aiui, trains on some lines (e.g. Victoria) could be made driverless relatively easily. Some other lines less so.
But the real issue is not ghe moving of the trains, but the interfaces between passengers and trains. The tech isn't really there yet for tube trains to reliably know automatically when the doors are clear. Hence someone needs to be on the train - or at the platform - to check.
Even humans get it wrong, as Christopher McGee and the family of Georgia Varley know all too well.
Your suggestion seems to imply that the No's will have to lie. 'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations.
"Ever closer union" is demanded by the preambles to both TEU and TFEU, and by article 1 of TEU. You can only prevent the United Kingdom being signed up to ever closer union by a treaty amendment under article 48(2) of TEU, which would require an intergovernmental conference, unanimous agreement by the heads of government, and ratification by every member state in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Do you really think Cameron will have got that by the date of the referendum? The referendum will be a clear choice between "ever closer union" and "out".
Whether we are in it or not, there is an urgent need for the EU to sort out the Eurozone/the Rest issue.
The Eurozone is going to keep integrating, those who are not in the Eurozone have - effectively - chosen to get off the integration bus.
If non Eurozone countries are to remain in the EU - and I mean principally those who are unlikely to ever join - such as ourselves, Denmark and Sweden, then there needs to be proper treaty change.
I don't think the EU has that degree of flexibility. I think life will become increasingly intolerable for non Eurozone members, simply because - to keep the Eurozone together - the Eurozone must continue to integrate, against the wishes of those on the outside.
I think you are broadly right and is what has been the point of Cameron's policy as announced in 2013. The Euro is what increasingly defines the EU. From the moment we did not join it became clear that we would at some time have to redefine our own link with or within it. As you succinctly show, this is not difficult to understand. Only the blind and the prejudiced want to ignore it. If Cameron redefines our status successfully I think we should stay in. If not we should join the EEA and keep our fingers crossed about Schengen. But overwhelmingly there would be little difference compared to now if we did join the EEA. And of course any terms can easily be amended by any future left wing Labour govt that would stroll into power if the Right allowed itself to split on the issue. The EU the Euro exist and will not go away. The issues they raise will always be there and we will have to deal with them.
"No" should campaign on the basis a vote for it is simply to reject Cameron's renegotation. Article 50 TEU allows a withdrawal agreement to be negotiated in two years which prima facie would bind the whole EU, which does not require ratification by the member states, and is agreed by QMV with the Parliament's consent. Admittedly this would involve the risk of leaving in two years with nothing agreed, but it is manifestly easier to get a workable agreement in the necessary time than by joining EFTA and then the EEA or renegotiating our membership from within (both of which require unanimity and ratification). If the UK does not want to be in either the EU or the EEA, but wants something more than the WTO rules, then it has to reach some sort of bespoke agreement with the EU. Article 50 offers the best means of getting it and getting it quickly.
Interesting point. However, from a political perspective in the lead-up to the referendum, that would be quite a tricky message, as it would leave the Out side very vulnerable to the 'leap in the dark' argument, which will be very potent. Admittedly they face that problem to some extent whatever approach is taken.
Given the dearth of leadership on the Out side, I strongly expect that the campaign will be chaotic and inconsistent, and the In side will ruthlessly, and successfully, exploit this.
.....However -and again I repeat myself - if we just walk out of the EU without first getting favourable terms then there is a clear chance that as part of any subsequent deal we would have to join Schengen. With massive trading blocks like USA, India, China, EU and Russia all looking to get the best for themselves I wonder what there is for the UK being outside of the EU. I shrug my shoulders - it may be better - but I cannot be bothered to get my micrometer out to measure it.
You do realise that the UK economy is about 50% bigger than Russia's and 40% bigger than India's?
I don't think the EU has that degree of flexibility. I think life will become increasingly intolerable for non Eurozone members, simply because - to keep the Eurozone together - the Eurozone must continue to integrate, against the wishes of those on the outside.
That remains to be seen - personally I'm more optimistic - but in any case it's not clear to me that leaving the EU would help very much. The Eurozone will still continue integrating, and we will still - in any even vaguely plausible scenario - still be subject, through a trading treaty, to many of its decisions. In particular, financial and other business services can't simply ignore the Eurozone, and if an increasingly integrated Eurozone decides to impose rules or take business away from us, there'd be little we could do. It would be like Canada's relationship to the US, pre-NAFTA.
That being the case, leaving altogether - in which case we'd have zero say and zero veto power - doesn't look attractive.
I'm open to being persuaded the other way, but I haven't seen any coherent answer to this point, or indeed much acknowledgement that it's an issue, from the Out side.
@rcs1000 The basic difficulty is that the Eurozone countries now (just) have a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and the European Council. The size of that majority will only increase as more member states join the Euro. Only the United Kingdom and Denmark are in theory exempt, although, as you say, it is difficult to conceive of Sweden joining in the medium term.
The only way to prevent Eurozone bloc voting will be to require a QMV of EU states and a QMV of non-Eurozone states. That will never be accepted, for the simple reason that it would give far too much power to the UK, and would in fact operate as a break on integration in the Eurozone. It could be vetoed by any member state. Nor does the EU look as if it will return any major competences to non-Eurozone member states.
We can leave, or we can continue in an increasingly isolated second division of the EU, bound by rules created by the Eurozone countries for their new political and economic union. Sadly, most British politicians believe the latter is preferable, convinced of the fantasy FCO line about "British influence" in Europe and/or the world.
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
Watching Qarabag v Celtic in the Champions League Qualifier. As an Arsenal fan I'm asking myself 'would I rather go to a third world country heavily dependent upon oil, or would I rather go to Azerbaijan?'
finally on bbc news "there are also questions for the trustees led by BBC's Alan Yentob who would not answer questons today". and then it returned to questions about the Govt....
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
But renationalisation doesn't cos anything. No-one supporting it is suggesting we early terminate the franchises, the government would simply not put them up for tender when they expired.
The real cost lies in the inevitable increase in public subsidy which would happen - as opposed to the subsidy falling at the moment. Then again the public would have to publicly borrow the money to invest in the railways. The much vaunted East Coast Line required a subsidy of 0.5p in 2013. South West Trains paid 1.2p per passenger mile back into the public purse, and First Capital Connect returned 3p; in total, the amount paid back by train companies to the Government amounts to some £1.5 billion per year. Network Rail continues to be fined for delays.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
How is leaving the EU going to alleviate the asylum problem?
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
How is leaving the EU going to alleviate the asylum problem?
I believe the argument is that we could leave the ECHR and would no longer have to obey by the very odd situation where we can spend billions in security preventing them from getting through, but then throw thousands of pounds in housing and welfare for the lucky few that manage to evade us.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
Nobody goes through the tunnel to get £35/week. They come through the tunnel to work in the black market in the UK and earn £300 a week cash in hand.
There are plenty of signatories to the ECHR that are far, far, far less generous than we are to illegal immigrants.
The reasons to leave the EU are: a) to regain lost sovereignty and b) to save money. If anything, ceterus parebus we are likely to be a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants when we are outside the EU because we will be richer.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
But renationalisation doesn't cos anything. No-one supporting it is suggesting we early terminate the franchises, the government would simply not put them up for tender when they expired.
The real cost lies in the inevitable increase in public subsidy which would happen - as opposed to the subsidy falling at the moment. Then again the public would have to publicly borrow the money to invest in the railways. The much vaunted East Coast Line required a subsidy of 0.5p in 2013. South West Trains paid 1.2p per passenger mile back into the public purse, and First Capital Connect returned 3p; in total, the amount paid back by train companies to the Government amounts to some £1.5 billion per year. Network Rail continues to be fined for delays.
The real cost would be in the political pressure to keep ticket prices down, which would come straight out of the investment budget. A reduced investment budget and a rocketing population would lead to gridlock in terms of congestion.
@rcs1000 The basic difficulty is that the Eurozone countries now (just) have a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and the European Council. The size of that majority will only increase as more member states join the Euro. Only the United Kingdom and Denmark are in theory exempt, although, as you say, it is difficult to conceive of Sweden joining in the medium term.
The only way to prevent Eurozone bloc voting will be to require a QMV of EU states and a QMV of non-Eurozone states. That will never be accepted, for the simple reason that it would give far too much power to the UK, and would in fact operate as a break on integration in the Eurozone. It could be vetoed by any member state. Nor does the EU look as if it will return any major competences to non-Eurozone member states.
We can leave, or we can continue in an increasingly isolated second division of the EU, bound by rules created by the Eurozone countries for their new political and economic union. Sadly, most British politicians believe the latter is preferable, convinced of the fantasy FCO line about "British influence" in Europe and/or the world.
It's possible that there's some arrangement of a red card system, such as one that allows three national parliaments to block EU legislation. But you're right. If we do not get a substantial power that non-Eurozone nations can use, then arguments about staying in for influence evaporate. It's far better to have no influence on regulations that only affect our EU exports, then no influence on regulations that affect our entire economy.
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
But renationalisation doesn't cos anything. No-one supporting it is suggesting we early terminate the franchises, the government would simply not put them up for tender when they expired.
The real cost lies in the inevitable increase in public subsidy which would happen - as opposed to the subsidy falling at the moment. Then again the public would have to publicly borrow the money to invest in the railways. The much vaunted East Coast Line required a subsidy of 0.5p in 2013. South West Trains paid 1.2p per passenger mile back into the public purse, and First Capital Connect returned 3p; in total, the amount paid back by train companies to the Government amounts to some £1.5 billion per year. Network Rail continues to be fined for delays.
The real cost would be in the political pressure to keep ticket prices down, which would come straight out of the investment budget. A reduced investment budget and a rocketing population would lead to gridlock in terms of congestion.
Although to be fair, that already happens (see the Tory commitment to cap rail fare rises)
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
Nobody goes through the tunnel to get £35/week. They come through the tunnel to work in the black market in the UK and earn £300 a week cash in hand.
There are plenty of signatories to the ECHR that are far, far, far less generous than we are to illegal immigrants.
The reasons to leave the EU are: a) to regain lost sovereignty and b) to save money. If anything, ceterus parebus we are likely to be a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants when we are outside the EU because we will be richer.
Your last sentence is correct but the original question was about Calais. As somebody who has lived in Dover all his life the rest of your post is questionable at best. For a start they will not be paid anywhere near £300 a week in the black market, that is the equivalent of £20k plus a year if legitimate. I enjoy this site but lots of people on here really don't seem to realise, or want to accept, how the immigration issue works. These people will disappear once they have cleared the system and some will work for cash, probably £100 pw from the gang masters and live plenty to a house in conditions far better than at home.
Govt is doing precisely nothing to address this problem which is leading to a lopsided economy and compressed wages.
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
A stronger message to who?
The idea that illegal migrants would be deterred by 'stronger messages', or by Sean's proposed legal nuancing on Article 8 of the ECHR, is fanciful.
The answer to Pulpstar's question is of course very simple: No.
The way in which Article 8 is interpreted significantly impairs the government's ability to deport failed asylum seekers.
It is at any rate better to attempt to do something, rather than just shrug and say nothing can be done.
Some interesting background on the last 15 years on the "official" asylum figures, table 7 is the one which caught my eye:
Does anyone know who the Pakistani asylum seekers are? Presumably Iranians and Eritreans could be dissidents to totalitarian regimes, Sri Lankans are Tamils, Syrians are various groups fleeing the war, but I do not understand the Pakistani number. What must you have about you to be in danger anywhere in Pakistan? Are they Christians, gay, or something else?
"The former Conservative children’s minister Tim Loughton has been caught signing up as a registered supporter of Labour to be eligible to vote in the party’s leadership election."
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.
When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?
Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?
I don't know but even if it did so what?
There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.
Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.
But renationalisation doesn't cos anything. No-one supporting it is suggesting we early terminate the franchises, the government would simply not put them up for tender when they expired.
The real cost lies in the inevitable increase in public subsidy which would happen - as opposed to the subsidy falling at the moment. Then again the public would have to publicly borrow the money to invest in the railways. The much vaunted East Coast Line required a subsidy of 0.5p in 2013. South West Trains paid 1.2p per passenger mile back into the public purse, and First Capital Connect returned 3p; in total, the amount paid back by train companies to the Government amounts to some £1.5 billion per year. Network Rail continues to be fined for delays.
Network Rail is effectively a nationalised entity.
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
Sorry to butt in but yes, first and foremost because it would change the dynamic of the relationship. Initially you could argue it would be more difficult, but over time we will be able to send out a stronger message.
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
Nobody goes through the tunnel to get £35/week. They come through the tunnel to work in the black market in the UK and earn £300 a week cash in hand.
There are plenty of signatories to the ECHR that are far, far, far less generous than we are to illegal immigrants.
The reasons to leave the EU are: a) to regain lost sovereignty and b) to save money. If anything, ceterus parebus we are likely to be a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants when we are outside the EU because we will be richer.
Your last sentence is correct but the original question was about Calais. As somebody who has lived in Dover all his life the rest of your post is questionable at best. For a start they will not be paid anywhere near £300 a week in the black market, that is the equivalent of £20k plus a year if legitimate. I enjoy this site but lots of people on here really don't seem to realise, or want to accept, how the immigration issue works. These people will disappear once they have cleared the system and some will work for cash, probably £100 pw from the gang masters and live plenty to a house in conditions far better than at home.
Govt is doing precisely nothing to address this problem which is leading to a lopsided economy and compressed wages.
That might be the situation in Dover, but it certainly isn't in London.
Undocumented, unskilled labour on a London building site is 50 quid a day. Almost everything is cash in hand.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Agreed. Even if we successfully deported more asylum seekers, it is unlikely it would have any affect on the flow of migrants. One thing I do not understand is why the government hasn't sued France in the Court of Justice for allowing or failing to prevent third parties in their jurisdiction from obstructing the free movement of goods. The French government have repeated form on this front.
What I don't understand is why all these would-be immigrants to Britain don't simply stay where they first arrive & become EU citizens there. Then they can come to Britain quite legally. Why risk your life for illegality?
They don't stay there because it is very hard to find work as an asylum seeker in Italy. You are left earning virtually nothing, hoping your asylum application is successful. If it is not you get deported.
If you get to the UK, you can work in the black economy with essentially no likelihood of being deported.
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
We dealt with this tosh when it was posted the other day. 1. What's wrong with the real figures -why weight in this misleading way? 2. The 'allowed to stay' figure completely ignores the ones that are refused and stay anyway.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
Agreed. Even if we successfully deported more asylum seekers, it is unlikely it would have any affect on the flow of migrants. One thing I do not understand is why the government hasn't sued France in the Court of Justice for allowing or failing to prevent third parties in their jurisdiction from obstructing the free movement of goods. The French government have repeated form on this front.
What I don't understand is why all these would-be immigrants to Britain don't simply stay where they first arrive & become EU citizens there. Then they can come to Britain quite legally. Why risk your life for illegality?
They don't stay there because it is very hard to find work as an asylum seeker in Italy. You are left earning virtually nothing, hoping your asylum application is successful. If it is not you get deported.
If you get to the UK, you can work in the black economy with essentially no likelihood of being deported.
Are you trying to say that Italy does not have a black economy? Given the numbers in places like Italy and Germany it must be clear that the ones surrounding Calais are relatively small. If we had had a direct land / sea route for these migrants - - they are economic migrants who pay large sums to people traffickers, not asylum seekers - - then we would have addressed the issue long ago.
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
And how many rejected asylum seekers are removed from those countries?
Here, it's the square root of bugger all.
It not just that,if Britain goes soft again on asylum,then watch Calais go from five thousand to numbers your eyes will start popping at.
Thats correct - but the other issue is that if we go soft on those whose responsibility it is, ie the country of first landing, then these countries too will happily encourage them in and on to us. And the real problem is in the countries that these economic migrants come from. Unless that is solved then we will continue to see no end of economic migrants.
For those who haven't seen it, here is an excellent piece from politico.com on what causes voters to confound the political punditry (using the Trump candidacy as the hook but also looking at Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger). The analysis can be applied equally persuasively to the Labour Party leadership election and Corbyn: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/trump-wins-2016-gop-nomination-120994.html?hp=t1_r#.VcJQrOu7KfR
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
I'd guess 2017, after the EU vote. It's possible he won't go, though. Osborne would also probably be pretty happy for Cameron to stay, so the Brown scenario, I'd guess, wouldn't apply here.
Jeremy Corbyn follows Burnham yesterday in laying out his plans. They include restoring the 50p top tax rate with a potentially higher rate for those on over £100,000, more regulation of the financial sector, no cuts in corporation tax and a £10 minimum wage. He would oppose a second runway at Heathrow, renationalise the railways, cap rents, build more homes and end right to buy for council and housing association properties but extend it to private tenants, consider banning ownership of property by non-UK entities and let town halls impose higher council tax on empty properties. As the leader makes clear he would also oppose air strikes on Syria, potentially put Blair on trial for war crimes and take a more anti-EU stance http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/full-interview-jeremy-corbyn-corybnmania-its-odd-im-a-normal-person-10439717.html
I keep looking at that picture of Cameron above. It puzzles me. I don't know what to make of it.
His right hand side is smiley. His mouth turns up and he has laugh lines around his right eye. His left hand side is frowny. His mouth turns down and his left eye is stony.
I've copied the picture, split it down the middle and flipped it over to get a right hand Cameron and a left hand Cameron. Two different people. The left hand one is rather scary.
I also guess, and I could be wrong, that 99% of those who come over have no intention of claiming asylum, but instead plan to disappear. Once you've been here a couple of years, how can anyone know definitively where you originally came from?
Thats correct - but the other issue is that if we go soft on those whose responsibility it is, ie the country of first landing, then these countries too will happily encourage them in and on to us. And the real problem is in the countries that these economic migrants come from. Unless that is solved then we will continue to see no end of economic migrants.
And how do you change the attitude of these countries?
The entire problem with the current migrant situation would be resolved in it's entirety if the French police arrested the individuals in these camps and attempting to board lorries and trains.
Of course they don't because they don't want to deal with the processing of the individuals and as they are intent on leaving France and entering the UK there is no resolution possible in this. No matter what fence you build or how many guards you post all that happens is individuals return to their starting point and get to try again.
Without action by the French, there is no outcome other than the migrants reach the UK. And there is no way for the UK to make the French act.
Waiting for an apology to the British people for wasting £3 million of taxpayers money on a company that was about to go bankrupt. Why do I get the feeling we won't ever get one?
@Sean_F Serious question - Would us being outside the EU have any effect whatsoever on the current Calais situation ?
...
Rubbish. The driving issue is the tunnel not anything else.
The driving issue is what happens when they arrive through the tunnel, they are currently housed in hotels, given 3 meals a day and £35 pw pocket money. If we vote to leave the EU we will be sending out the message that is ending. Australia have solved their similar problem, we could too if we had the will and people stopped clouding the issue.
Nobody goes through the tunnel to get £35/week. They come through the tunnel to work in the black market in the UK and earn £300 a week cash in hand.
There are plenty of signatories to the ECHR that are far, far, far less generous than we are to illegal immigrants.
The reasons to leave the EU are: a) to regain lost sovereignty and b) to save money. If anything, ceterus parebus we are likely to be a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants when we are outside the EU because we will be richer.
Your last sentence is correct but the original question was about Calais. As somebody who has lived in Dover all his life the rest of your post is questionable at best. For a start they will not be paid anywhere near £300 a week in the black market, that is the equivalent of £20k plus a year if legitimate. I enjoy this site but lots of people on here really don't seem to realise, or want to accept, how the immigration issue works. These people will disappear once they have cleared the system and some will work for cash, probably £100 pw from the gang masters and live plenty to a house in conditions far better than at home.
Govt is doing precisely nothing to address this problem which is leading to a lopsided economy and compressed wages.
That might be the situation in Dover, but it certainly isn't in London.
Undocumented, unskilled labour on a London building site is 50 quid a day. Almost everything is cash in hand.
Interesting. What do you mean by 'building site' - because clearly what you are suggesting is a massive tax scam to get round self employed labour rules. Are the Inland Revenue with long experience of casual labour so lax? Plus building sites especially big ones, are very dangerous places, not only for the uneducated unskilled undocumented individual but for all the other people whose lives he puts at risk.
Thats correct - but the other issue is that if we go soft on those whose responsibility it is, ie the country of first landing, then these countries too will happily encourage them in and on to us. And the real problem is in the countries that these economic migrants come from. Unless that is solved then we will continue to see no end of economic migrants.
And how do you change the attitude of these countries?
The entire problem with the current migrant situation would be resolved in it's entirety if the French police arrested the individuals in these camps and attempting to board lorries and trains.
Of course they don't because they don't want to deal with the processing of the individuals and as they are intent on leaving France and entering the UK there is no resolution possible in this. No matter what fence you build or how many guards you post all that happens is individuals return to their starting point and get to try again.
Without action by the French, there is no outcome other than the migrants reach the UK. And there is no way for the UK to make the French act.
I think that's absolutely right. By far the most effective solution, as I've been saying ad nauseum is to make the UK much less attractive as a destination for illegal immigrants.
FPT (still travelling so only looking in now and then): in response to the surprise that as a supporter of Tony Blair I'm considering voting for Corbyn, there are a couple of reasons.
First, I think the assumption that the first priority in politics is winning is wrong, and even immoral - it leads to all kinds of duplicitous behaviour which is one reason why people don't trust politicians. Of course, if there's an issue that we don't much care about we can just go with whatever voters currently want. Should we extend Heathrow or Gatwick or both or neither? I don't really care, and would happily go along with whatever the leadership decided. But if we think something is important, we should say why, argue the case, and let voters decide. Tony was good at that, and it's an important reason why I liked him as leader even when I disagreed with him. Corbyn is also good at it, as we're seeing - asked an awkward question, he thinks about it and gives an honest answer.
Second, we need to stand for something interesting that we genuinely believe will make life better. If we have no particular thoughts and merely want to win, then we should make way for people who are more constructive. Like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday, I basically want as left-wing an agenda as I think *might* be accepted. I'm not interested in merely promoting managerial change, decentralisation, etc.
Third, the probability of winning with Corbyn isn't zero. It's probably smaller than with Burnham or Cooper, and that is a consideration, but as I say not the only one.
I'm still marginally leaning to Cooper. But I absolutely see the attraction of Corbyn.
I keep looking at that picture of Cameron above. It puzzles me. I don't know what to make of it.
His right hand side is smiley. His mouth turns up and he has laugh lines around his right eye. His left hand side is frowny. His mouth turns down and his left eye is stony.
I've copied the picture, split it down the middle and flipped it over to get a right hand Cameron and a left hand Cameron. Two different people. The left hand one is rather scary.
FPT (still travelling so only looking in now and then): in response to the surprise that as a supporter of Tony Blair I'm considering voting for Corbyn, there are a couple of reasons.
First, I think the assumption that the first priority in politics is winning is wrong, and even immoral - it leads to all kinds of duplicitous behaviour which is one reason why people don't trust politicians. Of course, if there's an issue that we don't much care about we can just go with whatever voters currently want. Should we extend Heathrow or Gatwick or both or neither? I don't really care, and would happily go along with whatever the leadership decided. But if we think something is important, we should say why, argue the case, and let voters decide. Tony was good at that, and it's an important reason why I liked him as leader even when I disagreed with him. Corbyn is also good at it, as we're seeing - asked an awkward question, he thinks about it and gives an honest answer.
Second, we need to stand for something interesting that we genuinely believe will make life better. If we have no particular thoughts and merely want to win, then we should make way for people who are more constructive. Like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday, I basically want as left-wing an agenda as I think *might* be accepted. I'm not interested in merely promoting managerial change, decentralisation, etc.
Third, the probability of winning with Corbyn isn't zero. It's probably smaller than with Burnham or Cooper, and that is a consideration, but as I say not the only one.
I'm still marginally leaning to Cooper. But I absolutely see the attraction of Corbyn.
A slightly odd choice of words by the Malaysian PM:
"'Today, 515 days since the plane disappeared, it is with a very heavy heart that I must tell you that an international team of experts has conclusively confirmed that the aircraft debris found on Reunion Island is indeed from MH370."
Interesting. What do you mean by 'building site' - because clearly what you are suggesting is a massive tax scam to get round self employed labour rules. Are the Inland Revenue with long experience of casual labour so lax? Plus building sites especially big ones, are very dangerous places, not only for the uneducated unskilled undocumented individual but for all the other people whose lives he puts at risk.
Large chunks of the building trade are "cash in hand", including some surprisingly large projects. (Albeit Big DevCo PLC contracts Small Co Ltd to do the work, and to take the illegal workers on.)
74,000 immigrants to Sweden in a year is the equivalent of about half a million to the UK. Not surprising the Swedish Democrats are on 23% in the latest opinion poll:
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
Did I see it was 30 thousand that claimed asylum to Britain,if so,you think that is too few in numbers ? Plus hardly any that number would have been deported.
Keep saying,if you go soft on asylum just like Germany,your asking for trouble like Germany are finding out.
Comments
Camila Batmanghelidjh said "rumour-mongering civil servants", ministers and the media had "put the nail" in the high-profile charity, which she said would close at 19:00 BST.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33793070
Everybodies elses fault apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33794974?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
However, you've got to convince 50% of those who vote to join you. The chances of that are remote, if the alternative looks muddled, inconsistent, unattainable, economically highly risky, and not even very different - in terms of issues such as immigration - from the current position.
The core problem for the Out side is that either they try to pin down the alternative, in which case they'll alienate a chunk of their potential supporters, or else they let the In side paint it for them. As I've been saying for yonks, they should have started three years ago on developing a strategy to address this extremely tricky conundrum, but nothing of substance has been done.
It would just be silly if he resigns because of it.
(1) Emphasise that "Yes" is not an endorsement of the status quo, but an endorsement of "ever closer union", and of the proposals set out in the Five Presidents' Report.
(2) Uncertainty may have to be accepted as the price for a once in a generation chance to renegotiate our relationship with the EU. Cameron has waived the veto in respect of three treaty changes while PM, and secured nothing for Britain in return for those waivers. Now, with the best hand of cards any PM has had since Wilson, i.e. a threat of an exit referendum and leading an out campaign if he didn't get major change, he has secured nothing. If renegotiation wasn't possible in these circumstances, when will it be? 2055?
I likewise expect the most dishonest campaign from "Yes" in the history of British politics.
The Popish Plot is the closest historical analogy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186024/Dozens-alleged-victims-come-forward-police-investigating-claims-historic-sexual-abuse-against-Sir-Edward-Heath-brothel-madam-centre-controversy-denies-mentioning-name.html
What is weird about this tale is that this women was prosecuted for brothel full of underage runaway girls, but I thought all the suggestions were that if anything Heath wasn't into females.
...and lo, a witch hunt was confirmed, with Godwins Law thrown in at no extra cost
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11784844/The-Edward-Heath-witch-hunt-is-the-stuff-of-Hitlers-dreams.html
If it had been Ed Miliband the headline would have probably been "Told you he was unfit to be PM"
When can we expect the Fraud Squad to start sniffing about? The circumstances surrounding that £3 million payment, stink.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11785101/Calais-migrants-British-anarchists-infiltrate-camps-to-provoke-trouble-police-warn.html
The idea that illegal migrants would be deterred by 'stronger messages', or by Sean's proposed legal nuancing on Article 8 of the ECHR, is fanciful.
The answer to Pulpstar's question is of course very simple: No.
How about the £40 million of taxpayers cash you've spent?
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/burnham-ahead-among-labour-voters
It is at any rate better to attempt to do something, rather than just shrug and say nothing can be done.
'Yes' will not be an endorsement of ever closer union because preventing Britain's part in that is the whole point of the negotiations.
'Uncertainty' is another way of saying to people in Sunderland - 'do you want your jobs exported to Spain and Bulgaria'?
1. Will Corbyn win the labour leadership?
2. Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kids Company and 3 million smackers to the wind.
3. Cameron and the swarm. Cockroaches, anyone?
4. The London tube drivers strike: can these trains really run without drivers?
5. Edward Heaths private life, is he one of them?
6. Tim Farron visits Calais refugees, Obviously seeking L/Dem recruits.
As it happens, I agree that it would be good to do something about the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR. This has virtually nothing to do with the Calais situation, though, any more than it has anything to do with Mexicans desperate to cross into Texas, which is a problem for the US without any interventions from the European Court of Justice.
As to job issue, the Survation poll shows that "three million lost jobs" is indeed a potent scare tactic. It's bollocks, but it is potent.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
Farron is a fool.
Once again I repeat - the Eurozone is inevitably going to an ever closer political monetary and fiscal union. We do not want to be part of that, form good or ill. So we are going to be in a more distant orbit to the EU one way or another. Being in that distant orbit or being in the EEA will not make much difference. Both will involve free movement of Labour which so seems to energise the kipperati.
However -and again I repeat myself - if we just walk out of the EU without first getting favourable terms then there is a clear chance that as part of any subsequent deal we would have to join Schengen.
With massive trading blocks like USA, India, China, EU and Russia all looking to get the best for themselves I wonder what there is for the UK being outside of the EU. I shrug my shoulders - it may be better - but I cannot be bothered to get my micrometer out to measure it.
The Eurozone is going to keep integrating, those who are not in the Eurozone have - effectively - chosen to get off the integration bus.
If non Eurozone countries are to remain in the EU - and I mean principally those who are unlikely to ever join - such as ourselves, Denmark and Sweden, then there needs to be proper treaty change.
I don't think the EU has that degree of flexibility. I think life will become increasingly intolerable for non Eurozone members, simply because - to keep the Eurozone together - the Eurozone must continue to integrate, against the wishes of those on the outside.
Until that happens, it is still a lengthy process to become an EU citizen. You have to apply for asylum, be accepted, and then fulfil other criteria for citizenship, e.g residence for several years. The processing of asylum applications in Greece in the last decade, for example, has made the Home Office look like a model of efficiency. It is a process which might take significantly more than a decade. It is unsurprising that many are prepared to gamble.
That being the case, leaving altogether - in which case we'd have zero say and zero veto power - doesn't look attractive.
I'm open to being persuaded the other way, but I haven't seen any coherent answer to this point, or indeed much acknowledgement that it's an issue, from the Out side.
https://euobserver.com/news/123487
''He also called for the removal of the phrase referring to “ever closer union”, in the preamble of the EU treaty. "It may appeal to some countries. But it is not right for Britain, and we must ensure we are no longer subject to it," said Cameron.''
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33793070
On the one hand that is an absolute liberty, on the other, fair play to them for mailing me.. I had no way of knowing as I cant login and didn't even know I had a PP account in my own name
But the real issue is not ghe moving of the trains, but the interfaces between passengers and trains. The tech isn't really there yet for tube trains to reliably know automatically when the doors are clear. Hence someone needs to be on the train - or at the platform - to check.
Even humans get it wrong, as Christopher McGee and the family of Georgia Varley know all too well.
As you succinctly show, this is not difficult to understand. Only the blind and the prejudiced want to ignore it. If Cameron redefines our status successfully I think we should stay in. If not we should join the EEA and keep our fingers crossed about Schengen. But overwhelmingly there would be little difference compared to now if we did join the EEA.
And of course any terms can easily be amended by any future left wing Labour govt that would stroll into power if the Right allowed itself to split on the issue. The EU the Euro exist and will not go away. The issues they raise will always be there and we will have to deal with them.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/kids-company-ceo-was-unfairly-vilified-says-bbc-executive-alan-yentob-10401657.html
The basic difficulty is that the Eurozone countries now (just) have a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and the European Council. The size of that majority will only increase as more member states join the Euro. Only the United Kingdom and Denmark are in theory exempt, although, as you say, it is difficult to conceive of Sweden joining in the medium term.
The only way to prevent Eurozone bloc voting will be to require a QMV of EU states and a QMV of non-Eurozone states. That will never be accepted, for the simple reason that it would give far too much power to the UK, and would in fact operate as a break on integration in the Eurozone. It could be vetoed by any member state. Nor does the EU look as if it will return any major competences to non-Eurozone member states.
We can leave, or we can continue in an increasingly isolated second division of the EU, bound by rules created by the Eurozone countries for their new political and economic union. Sadly, most British politicians believe the latter is preferable, convinced of the fantasy FCO line about "British influence" in Europe and/or the world.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/racist-advert-for-farright-sweden-democrats-on-stockholm-metro-prompts-huge-protest-10438016.html
"Sweden has experienced a surge in migration in recent years, and takes in more refugees per capita than any other EU country. It is estimated that 74,000 asylum seekers will arrive in the country, which has a population of just under 10 million, this year."
The much vaunted East Coast Line required a subsidy of 0.5p in 2013.
South West Trains paid 1.2p per passenger mile back into the public purse, and First Capital Connect returned 3p; in total, the amount paid back by train companies to the Government amounts to some £1.5 billion per year.
Network Rail continues to be fined for delays.
WHill now seem to be offering 10-1, 8-1 and 6-1 on 2016, 2017 and 2018 above.
To me anyway on the slip, even though the numbers on the screen haven't changed yet.
Good luck if that was the half for tomorrow !
There are plenty of signatories to the ECHR that are far, far, far less generous than we are to illegal immigrants.
The reasons to leave the EU are: a) to regain lost sovereignty and b) to save money. If anything, ceterus parebus we are likely to be a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants when we are outside the EU because we will be richer.
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/627928157862109185
Govt is doing precisely nothing to address this problem which is leading to a lopsided economy and compressed wages.
"The former Conservative children’s minister Tim Loughton has been caught signing up as a registered supporter of Labour to be eligible to vote in the party’s leadership election."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/05/conservative-tim-loughton-signs-up-labour-supporter-leadership-contest
Here, it's the square root of bugger all.
Undocumented, unskilled labour on a London building site is 50 quid a day. Almost everything is cash in hand.
If you get to the UK, you can work in the black economy with essentially no likelihood of being deported.
1. What's wrong with the real figures -why weight in this misleading way?
2. The 'allowed to stay' figure completely ignores the ones that are refused and stay anyway.
Utterly repugnant
human beingindividual.And the real problem is in the countries that these economic migrants come from. Unless that is solved then we will continue to see no end of economic migrants.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/trump-wins-2016-gop-nomination-120994.html?hp=t1_r#.VcJQrOu7KfR
I'd guess 2017, after the EU vote. It's possible he won't go, though. Osborne would also probably be pretty happy for Cameron to stay, so the Brown scenario, I'd guess, wouldn't apply here.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/full-interview-jeremy-corbyn-corybnmania-its-odd-im-a-normal-person-10439717.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012
His right hand side is smiley. His mouth turns up and he has laugh lines around his right eye.
His left hand side is frowny. His mouth turns down and his left eye is stony.
I've copied the picture, split it down the middle and flipped it over to get a right hand Cameron and a left hand Cameron. Two different people. The left hand one is rather scary.
I also guess, and I could be wrong, that 99% of those who come over have no intention of claiming asylum, but instead plan to disappear. Once you've been here a couple of years, how can anyone know definitively where you originally came from?
The entire problem with the current migrant situation would be resolved in it's entirety if the French police arrested the individuals in these camps and attempting to board lorries and trains.
Of course they don't because they don't want to deal with the processing of the individuals and as they are intent on leaving France and entering the UK there is no resolution possible in this. No matter what fence you build or how many guards you post all that happens is individuals return to their starting point and get to try again.
Without action by the French, there is no outcome other than the migrants reach the UK. And there is no way for the UK to make the French act.
First, I think the assumption that the first priority in politics is winning is wrong, and even immoral - it leads to all kinds of duplicitous behaviour which is one reason why people don't trust politicians. Of course, if there's an issue that we don't much care about we can just go with whatever voters currently want. Should we extend Heathrow or Gatwick or both or neither? I don't really care, and would happily go along with whatever the leadership decided. But if we think something is important, we should say why, argue the case, and let voters decide. Tony was good at that, and it's an important reason why I liked him as leader even when I disagreed with him. Corbyn is also good at it, as we're seeing - asked an awkward question, he thinks about it and gives an honest answer.
Second, we need to stand for something interesting that we genuinely believe will make life better. If we have no particular thoughts and merely want to win, then we should make way for people who are more constructive. Like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday, I basically want as left-wing an agenda as I think *might* be accepted. I'm not interested in merely promoting managerial change, decentralisation, etc.
Third, the probability of winning with Corbyn isn't zero. It's probably smaller than with Burnham or Cooper, and that is a consideration, but as I say not the only one.
I'm still marginally leaning to Cooper. But I absolutely see the attraction of Corbyn.
First, I think the assumption that the first priority in politics is winning is wrong, and even immoral - it leads to all kinds of duplicitous behaviour which is one reason why people don't trust politicians. Of course, if there's an issue that we don't much care about we can just go with whatever voters currently want. Should we extend Heathrow or Gatwick or both or neither? I don't really care, and would happily go along with whatever the leadership decided. But if we think something is important, we should say why, argue the case, and let voters decide. Tony was good at that, and it's an important reason why I liked him as leader even when I disagreed with him. Corbyn is also good at it, as we're seeing - asked an awkward question, he thinks about it and gives an honest answer.
Second, we need to stand for something interesting that we genuinely believe will make life better. If we have no particular thoughts and merely want to win, then we should make way for people who are more constructive. Like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday, I basically want as left-wing an agenda as I think *might* be accepted. I'm not interested in merely promoting managerial change, decentralisation, etc.
Third, the probability of winning with Corbyn isn't zero. It's probably smaller than with Burnham or Cooper, and that is a consideration, but as I say not the only one.
I'm still marginally leaning to Cooper. But I absolutely see the attraction of Corbyn.
"'Today, 515 days since the plane disappeared, it is with a very heavy heart that I must tell you that an international team of experts has conclusively confirmed that the aircraft debris found on Reunion Island is indeed from MH370."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185946/MH370-search-officials-admit-initial-analysis-debris-wash-wrong-suggesting-reports-low-flying-jet-Maldives-correct-along.html
Keep saying,if you go soft on asylum just like Germany,your asking for trouble like Germany are finding out.