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.
Which is not viable either.
People come here to earn money, not get £36 a week in benefits. And they will find a way to earn money because there is not enough police and border force officers to stop it. The cost of even trying to deal with it is beyond what could be afforded by the country.
Even if there was an effective crackdown, it would take DECADES for the message to spread and to dissuade people from attempting to come here. The UK will always be attractive, not because of benefits, not because of the level of earnings but simply because it is the largest English speaking country available without crossing an Ocean.
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.
Politics would be so much better if those involved put principle before power. No party has a right to be successful or even exist. Labour risk becoming irrelevant while being untrue to themselves if they continue to let people define them as partly diluted Tories
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.
In a world where everyone has a mobile phone (even people in Eritrea), information travel fast and widely.
People know there are jobs in the UK. They know there are no ID cards. They know there is a large cash economy.
Migrants, just like the rest of us, are economically rational. They do what makes sense for them. And putting up walls at Calais, even shutting the tunnel, doesn't make the UK a less attractive destination.
There are two ways to reduce the pull of Britain:
1. Make it much harder to be employed in the black economy 2. Make sure migrants are processed in camps far away from population centers
If you do those then you dramatically reduce the number of people who want to get into Britain.
£50,000 and 43 days holiday for being a tube driver but YOU can't apply because jobs haven't been advertised for seven years
Transport for London has not advertise drivers' jobs externally since 2008 Roles are filled from thousands of applications from existing TfL staff Newly-qualified drivers start on £49,673 and get 43 days annual leave Four unions stage a walkout tonight bringing rush hour to a standstill
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.
I don't have a big problem with a party or rather its supporters saying their priority is not power in of itself, that is they would rather remain pure than do anything to win. I do have a problem if the same people were to complain in histrionic terms how evil the Tories are and how they are destroying the country by their very presence, or other such hyperbolic claims - because by admitting they'd rather not win than win the wrong way, they are in fact saying a Tory government is acceptable (if hardly desirable) in place of a less than optimal Labour government.
I've not seen you ever make such a comment, but it is the case partisans on both sides act as though their opponents winning would of course be an unparallelled disaster, and I don't think that makes sense if they also think their own side winning the wrong way is not as important as remaining true to themselves even if it costs them an election.
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.
Sometimes it seems like everyone else realises how great Britain is except (many/most of) the British!
@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.
You make my point well, £250 pw in London, no housing benefit, how/where do these people live?
There has been some suggestion that the Out side should explicitly pitch a second referendum. i.e. vote Out, we'll go away and negotiate the exit terms, then we'll put exit on these terms to the people.
Which would seem to be a very smart strategy - making In the irrevocable choice.
Given that we live in a world where Jeremy Corbyn - Jeremy F****** Corbyn - may become Prime Minister, I acknowledge a dual referendum may happen. But I hope it does not, for the following reasons:
* It's dishonest to the "Out"s. What would happen if the second referendum yields a "NO" vote? We stay in? * It's illogical. Once the first vote is "No", then all leverage is lost: given that the UK is commited to leaving, the UK will not be able to provide a "do this otherwise we will..." threat, and if you can't threaten, you don't get * It's expensive. From memory, the AV referendum cost £80-£100 million * It's just dumb.
Have a vote, YES or NO, we'll survive whatever the result, just be honest upfront about the implications and choose in full knowledge of the probable outcomes.
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.
In the UK, you will get free accommodation, free healthcare, prescriptions, etc., £37/week cash per member of household, plus the chance to top that up by working illegally. If you have kids, you will get free education and free school meals, plus the extra £37/week for each child.
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.
Asymmetry is the least of his flaws I reckon. P/S I like lateral thinking.
I see that as a strength, Mr Navabi. The question is whether we are in favour or not of remaining in the EU - presumably on the terms that M Cameron has managed to come up with.
For me the answer is almost certainly not. So I ought to vote NO. This does not mean that I favoour of what Mr Farage would llike to see. That is not being debated.
In short, a very stupid question. And I am surprised that Mr Cameron and his highly paid team of SPADS did not recognise that long ago.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's a straightforward one. The onus is on those who advocate NO to make the case for the alternative. Life is always about choices, not absolutes. Leaving the EU is not some abstraction, it's a choice of something else in preference to the status quo. The Out side seem remarkably incurious about what that other thing should and could be, and this failure will be fatal to their side of the argument.
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. Vote No, and there is at least the chance of improving our situation. Vote Yes, and there is the certainty that we won't.
I'm inclined that way as well.
It became clear to me, over FFT and Greece, that the Eurozone was minded to aggressively pursue its collective interests, at the expense of the UK if need be.
That's absolutely fine and reasonable on their part. But I don't want to be part of a Union where we are permanently in the abuse minority.
Mr. Nabavi: I have the confidence that the UK will be able to make it's own way in the world. Sure there may be a bit of dislocation in the interim, but in the longer term it's the right thing to do.
A good parallel might be closing the pits: painful in the near term, still difficult for some people, but overall the right thing for the country
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.
Here's a 15 year overview - table 7 has numbers per year.
I think as well as upping border security, we need to be clamping down on those who employ illegal immigrants - I know that would end up catching the chattering classes with their maids, au pairs - as well as restaurant owners, cleaning firms, sweat shops and farmers.
Here's a serious request for info, and I'm a bit ashamed to be so unworldly to have to ask it:
Can someone direct me to information for a private person donating to charity? This would be to Alma mater{s} or to other recognised institutions, say cancer research.
Is one limited to a certain amount each year? How about tax implications?
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?
FWIW, we've been approached by Kids Company a few times over the years. We've always said 'no', because they couldn't demonstrate the value that would be created from our intervention. It felt like money in, money out rather than any strategic vision.
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.
How about we team up with Denmark, Sweden and Norway and create a new non-Eurozone group that's a member of the EU and votes as a bloc. We could call it the Hanseatic League. Holland and Germany might even want to join...
My immediate reaction is that 2016 and 2017 are the two bets of value. Essentially this is a bet on an Out result in the referendum - whatever he says now, in reality Cameron would certainly stand down (or be pushed out) if we've voted to leave the EU. Quite apart from anything else, the overwhelming issue for the government would immediately switch to negotiating our exit, and only someone (Owen Paterson?) who'd campaigned on the Out side, and developed the economic arguments to go with it, could credibly run the country, and the Conservative Party, in those circumstances.
The only issue is that we don't yet know the referendum date, but on the other hand for 2017 at least you also get a free bet that Cameron might leave reasonably quickly after a Stay In result. On balance, therefore, 16/1 on 2017 looks pretty good, for anyone Mr Hill will honour by laying a bet.
If Cameron departs of his own accord before 2020 he will be accused - with good reason - of being a liar.
Comments
People come here to earn money, not get £36 a week in benefits. And they will find a way to earn money because there is not enough police and border force officers to stop it. The cost of even trying to deal with it is beyond what could be afforded by the country.
Even if there was an effective crackdown, it would take DECADES for the message to spread and to dissuade people from attempting to come here. The UK will always be attractive, not because of benefits, not because of the level of earnings but simply because it is the largest English speaking country available without crossing an Ocean.
What silly mistake did he make now?
In a world where everyone has a mobile phone (even people in Eritrea), information travel fast and widely.
People know there are jobs in the UK. They know there are no ID cards. They know there is a large cash economy.
Migrants, just like the rest of us, are economically rational. They do what makes sense for them. And putting up walls at Calais, even shutting the tunnel, doesn't make the UK a less attractive destination.
There are two ways to reduce the pull of Britain:
1. Make it much harder to be employed in the black economy
2. Make sure migrants are processed in camps far away from population centers
If you do those then you dramatically reduce the number of people who want to get into Britain.
I've not seen you ever make such a comment, but it is the case partisans on both sides act as though their opponents winning would of course be an unparallelled disaster, and I don't think that makes sense if they also think their own side winning the wrong way is not as important as remaining true to themselves even if it costs them an election.
* It's dishonest to the "Out"s. What would happen if the second referendum yields a "NO" vote? We stay in?
* It's illogical. Once the first vote is "No", then all leverage is lost: given that the UK is commited to leaving, the UK will not be able to provide a "do this otherwise we will..." threat, and if you can't threaten, you don't get
* It's expensive. From memory, the AV referendum cost £80-£100 million
* It's just dumb.
Have a vote, YES or NO, we'll survive whatever the result, just be honest upfront about the implications and choose in full knowledge of the probable outcomes.
Amongst Tory voters who would consider Labour, Burnham is on 17%, Cooper and Kendall on 11% each, Corbyn on 4%. Amongst Green leaners Corbyn is on 32%, Burnham 13%, Kendall 9%, Cooper 6%
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/burnham-ahead-among-labour-voters
P/S I like lateral thinking.
It became clear to me, over FFT and Greece, that the Eurozone was minded to aggressively pursue its collective interests, at the expense of the UK if need be.
That's absolutely fine and reasonable on their part. But I don't want to be part of a Union where we are permanently in the abuse minority.
Mr. Nabavi: I have the confidence that the UK will be able to make it's own way in the world. Sure there may be a bit of dislocation in the interim, but in the longer term it's the right thing to do.
A good parallel might be closing the pits: painful in the near term, still difficult for some people, but overall the right thing for the country
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
I think as well as upping border security, we need to be clamping down on those who employ illegal immigrants - I know that would end up catching the chattering classes with their maids, au pairs - as well as restaurant owners, cleaning firms, sweat shops and farmers.
Can someone direct me to information for a private person donating to charity? This would be to Alma mater{s} or to other recognised institutions, say cancer research.
Is one limited to a certain amount each year? How about tax implications?